U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice ProgramsNational Institute of Justice
N A T I O N A L
I N S T I T U T E O F
J U S T I C E
N A T I O N A L
I N S T I T U T E O F
J U S T I C E
Annual ReportT O C O N G R E S S
L E T T E R O F T R A N S M I T T A L
To the President, the Attorney General,and the Congress:
I have the honor to transmit the National Institute of Justice’s annual report on
research, development, and evaluation for fiscal year 1998, pursuant to the Omnibus
Crime Control and Safe Streets Act (as amended) and the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Act.
Respectfully submitted,
Jeremy TravisDirectorNational Institute of Justice
Washington, DC
Annual ReportT O C O N G R E S S
N A T I O N A L
I N S T I T U T E O F
J U S T I C E
D E C E M B E R 1 9 9 9
Annual Report
U.S. Department of JusticeOffice of Justice Programs
810 Seventh Street N.W.Washington, DC 20531
Janet RenoAttorney General
Daniel MarcusActing Associate Attorney General
Laurie RobinsonAssistant Attorney General
Noël BrennanDeputy Assistant Attorney General
Jeremy TravisDirector, National Institute of Justice
Office of Justice Programs National Institute of JusticeWorld Wide Web Site World Wide Web Sitehttp://www.ojp.usdoj.gov http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij
NCJ 177617
The National Institute of Justice is a component of the Office of Justice Programs, which also includes the
Bureau of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, and
Office for Victims of Crime.
iiiNIJ Annual Report 1998
Message From the Directorn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
NIJ in Briefn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Organization and Financial Datan . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
Growth in Funding and Collaborative Activities Since 1994n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Overview of the Yearn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Basic Researchn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
Applied Researchn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
Technology Development . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
Testing New Ideas and Technology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
Expanding the Horizons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Sharing Knowledge. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
Selected Highlightsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Making Communities Safern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Monitoring Arrestees’ Drug Use Reveals Community Trendsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
Strategic Approaches to Community Safetyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
Policing in the Communityn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
Minimizing Risk Through Less-Than-Lethal Technologyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
Taking Steps to Prevent Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Mapping Out Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32
Partnerships Promote the Safety of Women and Familiesn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 34
Enhancing Public Safety by Improving and Detecting Weaponsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36
Finding New Ways of Working Togethern . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Partnerships—Multiplying Perspectives and Resourcesn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
Consulting the Experts in Science and Technologyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 40
Guiding the User of State-of-the-Art Technologyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42
Exploring Issues of Special Concernn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44
Understanding Crime in Its Context: The Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoodsn . . . . . . . . 44
Examining Youth and Crime Issuesn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 46
Issues in Sentencing and Correctionsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 49
Appendixesn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1998n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Correctionsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 53
Courtsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54
Crime Mappingn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
Crime Preventionn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 55
iv
Table of Contents
Drugs and Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 56
Information Dissemination and General Supportn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
International Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Policingn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 58
Public Housing and Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Schoolsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 60
Sentencingn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Technology Developmentn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61
Victimization and Victim Servicesn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Violencen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 67
Youthn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 69
Appendix B: Documents Published in Fiscal Year 1998n . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Correctionsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 71
Courts and Sentencingn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Crime Preventionn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Drugs and Crimen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Law Enforcementn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Technologyn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 72
Victimsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Violencen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 73
Other . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 74
NIJ Journaln . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Solicitations for Research and Evaluationn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75
Annual Reportsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Award Listsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Catalogs of Publications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
Electronic Publicationsn . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 76
vNIJ Annual Report 1998
Criminal justice research has come of age in the
30 years since Congress established NIJ as the Nation’s
criminal justice research institute. Much of the informa-
tion in this year’s annual report is based on accumulated
knowledge gained through past research.
The natural curve of scientific discovery is a deliberate
one—gathering evidence, analyzing it, and replicating
findings take time. Progress often comes in small
increments. The process can be compared to building
blocks in which each block contributes to a stronger
foundation and a sounder structure. NIJ has followed
this building block approach—maximizing each
success, learning from each disappointment,
and making headway so that scientific research today
is more frequently recognized as an integral step
toward effective policy and practice.
As a research institute, NIJ recognizes that the
challenges of the 21st century involve an acceptance
of the incremental pace of scientific research, the
continuing assurance of the rigor of the scientific
process, and the importance of prompt dissemination
of the results so that they may be assimilated into
both policy and practice.
It is a testament to the perseverance of researchers
and practitioners and the importance of knowledge
building for policy and practice that we have come this
far; the promise of tomorrow lies in the ability to sustain
our collaboration to meet continuing challenges.
Public safety issues will continue to be complex and
perplexing, and many crime issues of the past remain
with us. Issues related to the pursuit of justice and the
role of the criminal sanction assume new saliency as
rates of imprisonment continue to soar. The good news
is that researchers and practitioners are beginning to
tease apart the complexities of crime, crime prevention,
criminal behavior, and the impact of crime policies
through use of an ever stronger scientific infrastructure.
Criminal justice research is making a difference, and
an increasing number of practitioners and policymakers
are using research data in crafting their decisions and
policies. Thirty years ago, when the President’s
Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration
of Justice recommended the creation of a research
institute that would apply the principles of science and
technology to understanding the problems of crime,
crime control, and the administration of justice, the
fledgling National Institute of Justice opened shop
with a mandate, a vision, a set of good minds, and,
in the words of the Commission, “a pervasive lack
of information about crime and the possible effects
of various techniques for crime control.”
Some things have remained the same in the last 30
years—NIJ continues to encourage minds in a variety of
disciplines—but other things have changed significantly.
An incredible arsenal of tools is now commonplace,
most notably computers, analytic software, and other
technological advances. However, the biggest change
has come with the dramatic growth of empirical
foundations of criminal justice knowledge, which has
grown with expanded research findings. The past
30 years have brought steady progress toward under-
standing, preventing, and solving crime problems.
Jeremy TravisDirector
vi
NIJ in Brief
Criminal justice research is making a difference,
and an increasing number of practitioners and
policymakers are using research data in
crafting their decisions and policies.
1NIJ Annual Report 1998
NIJ is composed of the director’s office plus three
main offices. (See exhibit 1, “Organization of NIJ.”)
Each has distinct responsibilities:
• The Office of the Director sets the Institute’s
agenda, develops strategic plans and policies,
initiates collaboration with other government
and private agencies, and oversees the Institute’s
budget and management activities.
• The Office of Development and Communications
develops and tests research-based programs,
brings promising new practices to the attention
of the field, and communicates findings and
technological innovations through multiple meth-
ods. Priority is given to the needs of State and local
officials and criminal justice practitioners. The new
International Center focuses on justice issues that
ongress created the National Institute of
Justice 30 years ago to support research,
evaluation, demonstration programs, development of
technology, and dissemination of information relating to
crime and the administration of justice.1
The Institute’s mandate is the same today as it was
in 1968—to marry science to criminal justice problem
solving and policy development. Over the intervening
years, NIJ has made steady, incremental progress,
each year building on the years past. In the process,
researchers have followed the natural course of
scientific discovery, finding science-based knowledge
to help develop answers to complicated social and
technical problems.
Although the mandate remains the same, NIJ’s portfolio
of research, evaluation, and technology has broadened
considerably. It now encompasses more than discrete
studies of police, courts, drugs, and corrections. It
also focuses on crime in its social context, crime and
its relation to public health issues, crime policy and
the use of data, crime prevention through technology,
and crime analysis through geocoding and geographic
analysis. It takes into consideration community action,
active partnerships, multiple scientific disciplines, and
many technological approaches.
As NIJ moves toward 2000, it continues to demonstrate
its ability to build bridges between research on criminal
justice policy and practice and research in related dis-
ciplines and to find more and more conduits for sharing
research results with practitioners.
C
Organization and Financial Data
1 NIJ’s authorizing legislation is the Omnibus Crime Controland Safe Streets Act of 1968, as amended.
Exhibit 1: Organization of NIJ
The International CenterDirector, James Finckenauer
Development DivisionActing Director, Cheryl A. Crawford
Communications DivisionDirector, Mary G. Graham
National Institute of JusticeDirector, Jeremy Travis
Crime Control andPrevention DivisionDirector, Thomas Feucht
Criminal Justice andCriminal Behavior DivisionDirector, Laura Winterfield
Research and TechnologyDevelopment DivisionDirector, Trent DePersia
Technology AssistanceDivisionDirector, Michael Grossman
Office of Researchand Evaluation
Director, Sally T. Hillsman
Office of the Director
Joint Program Steering GroupJustice Chair, Peter Nacci
Technology Support DivisionDirector, Sharla Rausch
Planning and Management DivisionDirector, Edwin Zedlewski
Office of Developmentand CommunicationsDirector, John L. Schwarz
Office of Scienceand Technology
Director, David G. Boyd
The Institute’s research and development portfolio
continued to grow throughout fiscal year 1998: 358
grants were awarded, bringing the total number of
active grants to 796. (See exhibit 2, “Growth of NIJ’s
Research and Development Portfolio, 1994–98.”) The
awards made in 1998 are listed in appendix A, page 53.
The Institute’s total funding reached almost $116 mil-
lion. Congress appropriated $41 million for core opera-
tions, and other Federal agencies and Crime Act offices
transferred an additional $74.9 million for research and
evaluation activities. (See exhibit 3, “Sources of NIJ
Funds, in Millions, FY 1994–98,” and exhibit 4,
“Allocation of NIJ Funds as a Percentage of Total
Expenditure, FY 1998.”)
NIJ’s partnerships with Federal agencies have grown
dramatically since 1994. During 1998, NIJ entered into
research, development, testing, and evaluation funding
agreements that totaled more than NIJ’s base appropri-
ation from Congress. Half of these partnerships were
with agencies within the U.S. Department of Justice and
were supported with funds from the 1994 Crime Act.
Other major partnerships are with the White House’s
2
NIJ in Brief
transcend national boundaries and have an impact
on State and local criminal justice systems.
• The Office of Research and Evaluation develops,
conducts, directs, and supervises comprehensive
research and evaluation activities. The range of
research and evaluation projects cuts across a
wide array of distinct topics within the Institute’s
charter. Two programs operate as distinct centers
of activity: the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
program and the Crime Mapping Research Center.
In addition, the Data Resources Program works to
ensure the preservation and availability of research
and evaluation data collected through NIJ-funded
research.
• The Office of Science and Technology directs and
supervises technology research, development, and
demonstrations to provide law enforcement and
corrections agencies access to the best technolo-
gies available. It also provides technology assis-
tance so that these agencies can enhance their
capabilities to improve efficiency and effectiveness.
Technology assistance is provided through the
network of the regional National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Centers.
During 1998, all of NIJ’s offices moved into one building,
allowing the complete staff to be together for the
first time in almost 2 years. The consolidation of NIJ
accompanied a parallel consolidation of all the other
bureaus and offices that comprise the Office of
Justice Programs and infused both NIJ and the
Office of Justice Programs with renewed energy
and collaborative activity.
Growth in Funding and Collaborative Activities Since 1994
Exhibit 2: Growth of NIJ’s Research and Development Portfolio, 1994–98
$70$93
$145
217267
281
148
Number ofAwards Made
Number ofActive Awards*
Value ofActive Awards*
(in millions)
19941994199519961997
0 100 200
1998358
$236
300 400 500 600 700 800
491632
765
381
796
$353
*Totals for each year reflect current-year awards plus still-active awards issued in previous years.
3NIJ Annual Report 1998
Office of National Drug Control Policy and the U.S.
Department of State.
Interdisciplinary partnerships (those outside the
fields of criminal justice) have enriched the scientific
method; NIJ continues to strongly support multi-
disciplinary collaborations. Criminology can reveal
only one piece of the puzzle; other disciplines
contribute to a more subtle and nuanced understanding
of crime, criminal behavior, and crime prevention in
a broader context. That is why, for example, NIJ’s
portfolio of violence against women research is cofund-
ed by agencies interested in the physical and mental
health implications of such violence.
Exhibit 3: Sources of NIJ Funds, in Millions, FY 1994–98
$23.5$53.7
$99$100.6
N/A$15.6
$51.9$51.1
$11.1$17.1$19.5
$0.5
$27$30$30
$23
CongressionalAppropriation
Transfers FromOther Agencies
TransfersFrom Crime Act
Program Offices
Total Funds
19941994199519961997
0 20 40 80 10060 120
1998
$41
$26.3
$48.6
$115.9
Exhibit 4: Allocation of NIJ Funds as a Percentage of Total Expenditure,* FY 1998
Crime Act GrantsIncludes all awards made under the1994 Crime Act. See also exhibit 3.
Research, Evaluation,and DevelopmentIncludes all research, evaluation,science and technology, development,and visiting fellows projects.
DisseminationIncludes clearinghouse, publications,and national and international exchangeof information.
Research, Evaluation,and Development
Research andEvaluation
Program Support
Dissemination
Law Enforcement andCorrections Technology
Support Programs
32%
Crime Act Grants42%
13%
9%
4%
*Total expenditure of $116 million includes NIJ’s baseappropriation plus funds transferred from other agencies.
4
Overview of the Year
B a s i c R e s e a r c h
A p p l i e d R e s e a r c h
N e w T e c h n o l o g i e s
5NIJ Annual Report 1998
NIJ’s research rests on the fundamental assumption that
scientific inquiry forms the basis of sound policy and
practice. The heart of such basic research involves iden-
tifying key questions for study, gathering relevant data,
analyzing that data, and drawing conclusions and infer-
ences without prejudice or preconceived expectations.
The findings from basic research inform the larger
society—those outside the realm of criminal justice—
of factors that contribute to policy action and the
implications of those actions.
The conclusions and insights gained from basic
research are then translated into programs that can be
tested in real world settings. But the process of making
policy regarding public safety usually does not follow
science’s straight and careful path because public poli-
cy is based on consensus, tradeoffs, individual rights,
he Nation was heartened to witness once again
a year in which crime rates declined. Criminal
justice practitioners, policymakers, community leaders,
and researchers alike can justifiably celebrate this
downward trend. At the same time, these partners are
keenly aware that too much crime still occurs and that
the causes of the decline are imperfectly understood.
Much hard work remains to build upon the gains
of the last few years.
In addition to the optimism declining crime rates bring,
they also spur debate and heated discussion: What
exactly has caused them to decline? Will they continue
to decline? What can be done to keep crime rates down?
There are several answers and points of view related
to each question, but one rings true for each: only
research and experimentation can help explain and
answer these questions systematically and objectively.
Communities and their leaders are hungry for definitive
and comprehensive answers—and the sooner the
better. Much scientific discovery is, by its nature, a
steady, time-consuming process that involves putting
one piece with another until a pattern or picture
evolves and avenues for success become clearer.
Research and evaluation can provide suggestive data,
fuller logic models of what is likely to work, and data
to support problem identification. Experiments with
problem-solving approaches can occur as the more
deliberative scientific process continues to collect
needed data, posit solutions, and evaluate the process
and its impact.
The Institute’s research, evaluation, and development
endeavors fall into three main categories: basic
research, applied research, and the testing of new
ideas and technologies. This section is an overview
of NIJ’s activities in these three areas. It includes
a special section on activities that go beyond the
horizons of American criminal justice and concludes
with a discussion of how the Institute disseminates
knowledge.
T
Basic Research
legal rulings, political climate, public perceptions,
and community values. Criminal justice researchers—
like all social science researchers—cannot work in a
white-coat laboratory where they control all variables
as they apply different tests.
Several major projects under way fall into the category
of basic research at NIJ:
Chicago Project on Human DevelopmentUnderstanding the complexities of family, peer, and
neighborhood influences on criminal behavior is the
goal of the Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods. The Project, now in its 5th of 8 years,
asks theoretical questions about both group and
individual behavior in a social context as it examines
how individual personalities, family relationships,
school environment, and type of community interact
over time to contribute to delinquency, criminal
behavior, and prosocial development.
One of the Project’s priorities for 1998 was the building
of a master file of primary variables for a number of
analyses, including ones focusing on exposure to vio-
lence, adolescent substance abuse, social cohesion as a
protective factor in adolescent suicide, and risk factors,
such as depression for adolescent girls’ delinquency.
DNA Research The rapid advance of DNA technologies has left many
criminal justice professionals without proper training
and technical support. Hence, NIJ is sponsoring three
initiatives to foster understanding about the use of
DNA evidence and to improve public safety: The
National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence,
the Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program,
and the DNA 5-Year Plan.
The National Commission on the Future
of DNA Evidence. This Commission is gathering
data and testimony to make recommendations to the
Attorney General on the means of enhancing the use
of DNA in the criminal justice system. The Commission
is considering how recent advances in DNA research
affect operation of the entire criminal justice system,
from crime scene through trial, including legal issues,
laboratory funding issues, and the use of DNA in
postconviction relief.
The 21 Commission members were selected from a
broad spectrum of policymakers, defense attorneys,
prosecutors, law enforcement officials, scientists,
professors, and other experts in the use of DNA
forensic evidence. Wisconsin State Supreme Court
Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson chairs the
Commission.
During 1998, the Commission held three meetings;
its work will continue through 1999 and conclude with
final recommendations and a report in 2000.
The Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement
Program. This Program, authorized by the DNA
Identification Act of 1994 (Public Law 103–322), is
increasing the capacity of State and local forensic
laboratories to conduct standardized DNA testing.
Most States use a combination of State, county, and
municipal laboratories to provide forensic services
to their police organizations, but the equipment and
staffing of the laboratories are woefully inadequate to
handle the volume of cases involving DNA testing to
support analysis of biological evidence recovered
from crime scenes.
6
Overview of the Year
Communities and their leaders are hungry for
definitive and comprehensive answers—and the
sooner the better. Much scientific discovery is,
by its nature, a steady, time-consuming process
that involves putting one piece with another until a
pattern or picture evolves and avenues
for success become clearer.
NIJ awarded $11.6 million to 39 State and local agencies
in fiscal year 1998, plus an additional $500,000 through
two awards to: (1) fund a study to determine the feasi-
bility of external, blind-proficiency testing for DNA lab-
oratories, and (2) conduct an evaluation of the impact
of Federal DNA funding programs. The cumulative
funds for the Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement
Program now total $24,118,448.
The DNA 5-Year Plan is designed to encourage
the development of cutting-edge molecular biology
methods and tools to achieve highly discriminating,
reliable, economic, and rapid DNA testing approaches
appropriate for forensic identity testing. By 2003,
NIJ hopes to dramatically reduce DNA testing costs;
reduce analysis time from hours to minutes; develop
inexpensive, portable, disposable DNA test kits for
field use; increase the reliability and legal credibility
of DNA testing through the development of a dual
testing approach; and develop standard materials
for population databases.
Systematic Social ObservationNIJ is supporting basic research on police behavior
using a field research method called systematic social
observation, which requires researchers to follow pre-
cise rules for observing and measuring behavior in its
natural setting. Trained observers accompany police
officers in their cars, on foot, or on bicycle to observe
everything the officer does during a typical tour of duty.
They do not rely upon others to describe or interpret
events. The goal is to improve general understanding of
policing and police policy and to account for variations
in the way policing is performed and policies are
carried out in different jurisdictions.
Researchers are using systematic social observation in
several sites—urban, suburban, and rural—to inform
police managers and the public about how officers
spend their time, how they organize to work with the
public, how they use their authority with the public, how
policing styles vary in different beats, and the nature
and extent of onscene supervision.
Although systematic social observation yields an extra-
ordinary amount of information on police at work, it is
costly, time-consuming, and dependent on the
cooperation of the police. It is, therefore, best suited
to special studies rather than routine monitoring of
police practices. Despite its expense, it provides a
rich volume of information about policing in different
contexts.
NIJ has published several reports based on these stud-
ies and expects additional reports in the coming year.2
Violence Against WomenViolence against women came to be widely recognized
as a serious social problem in the early 1970’s, but basic
empirical data on the frequency and types of violence
against women have been limited until the last few years.
To further knowledge in this area, NIJ and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention jointly sponsored—
through a grant to the Denver-based Center for Policy
Research—the National Violence Against Women
(NVAW) telephone survey of a national, representative
sample of 8,000 women and 8,000 men.
In 1998, the NVAW survey produced two major reports
detailing the first empirical data on stalking and other
violence.3 The researchers found that the extent of vio-
lence against women is more profound and more wide-
spread than originally thought. Among the key findings:
• Stalking. Approximately 1 million women and
371,000 men are stalked annually in the United
States; 8 percent of surveyed women and 2 percent
7NIJ Annual Report 1998
2 Mastrofski, Stephen D., Roger B. Parks, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr.,Policing Neighborhoods: A Report From St. Petersburg, ResearchPreview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, forthcoming. “Observing Police inNeighborhoods,” in Annual Report to Congress, 1997,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Instituteof Justice, August 1998 (NCJ 171679). Mastrofski, Stephen D.,Roger B. Parks, and Albert J. Reiss, Jr., Systematic Observationof Public Police: Applying Field Research Methods to PolicyIssues, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, December 1998 (NCJ 172859).3 Tjaden, Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes, Stalking in America:Findings From the National Violence Against Women Survey,Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, April 1998 (NCJ 169592). Tjaden,Patricia, and Nancy Thoennes, Prevalence, Incidence, andConsequences of Violence Against Women: Findings From theNational Violence Against Women Survey, Research in Brief,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Instituteof Justice, November 1998 (NCJ 172837).
8
Overview of the Year
of surveyed men said they had been stalked at
some time in their lives.
• Rape. Eighteen percent of women surveyed said
they had experienced a completed or attempted
rape at some time in their lives, and 0.3 percent said
they had experienced a completed or attempted
rape in the previous 12 months. Of the women who
reported being raped at some time in their lives,
22 percent were under 12 years old and 32 percent
were 12 to 17 years old when they were first raped.
Women who were raped before the age of 18 were
significantly more likely to be raped as adults.
• Partner violence. The findings further revealed
that women experienced significantly more partner
violence than men: 25 percent of surveyed women
(compared to 8 percent of men) said they had been
raped and/or physically assaulted by a current or
former spouse, cohabiting partner, or date.
• Extent of injury. Women were significantly
more likely than men to be injured during an
assault: 32 percent of women and 16 percent
of men who were raped since age 18 were
injured during their most recent rape.
However, many questions still remain unanswered.
For example, studies are needed to determine why the
prevalence of violence varies significantly among women
of different racial and ethnic backgrounds, and more
needs to be understood about the financial impact of
medical treatment for violence against women.
In the coming years, NIJ’s vigorous violence against
women and family violence portfolio will begin produc-
ing more findings as projects funded in 1996 and later
are completed.
Evaluating Drug Use in PrisonsIn addition to the awards NIJ gives to research centers,
NIJ’s own staff also contribute scientific expertise to
the store of knowledge. (See “NIJ’s Intramural
Research Program.”) One of these intramural projects
involved evaluating a drug detection and interdiction
effort in the Pennsylvania prison system. The study
found that drug testing through hair analysis can be a
valuable component in the drive to eliminate illegal
drugs in prisons.
NIJ’s Intramural Research Program
Since its creation in 1968, NIJ has engaged
researchers through a diverse, multidisciplinary
extramural research program that involves a
highly competitive award process.
Beginning in 1994, NIJ’s science, evaluation,
and program development staff began infusing
the agency with knowledge gained through their
independent intramural research studies.
During 1998, staff-authored papers and reports
were published or presented on the following
topics:
• International comparisons of drug use among
arrestees.1
• The use of geocoding and geographic analysis
within law enforcement agencies.2
• The role of women in the criminal justice
system (as offenders, victims, volunteers,
and professional personnel).3
• Victimization and personal fraud.4
• The effects of pepper spray.5
1 Taylor, Bruce, and Trevor Bennett, Comparing Drug Use Rates of Detained Arrestees in the United States andEngland, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1999 (NCJ 175052).2 LaVigne, Nancy, and Julie Wartell, eds., Crime MappingCase Studies, Washington, D.C.: Police ExecutiveResearch Forum, 1998 (product #834). Mamalian, Cynthia A., and Nancy G. LaVigne, The Use ofComputerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement:Survey Results, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, January 1999 (FS 000237).3 Office of Justice Programs, Women in Criminal Justice: A 20-Year Update, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, 1998 (NCJ 173416). 4 Titus, Richard, “Victimization by Personal Fraud,” paper presented at the 1998 Economic Crime Summit, St. Louis, April 28, 1998. Titus, Richard, “Personal Fraud: Who Are the Victims and What Are the Scams?” paperpresented at the American Society of Criminology 1998 Annual Meeting, Washington, D.C., November 11, 1998.5 Kaminski, Robert, Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson, “The Effects of Oleoresin Capsicum onAssaults Against Police: Testing the Velcro-EffectHypothesis,” Police Quarterly 1(2) (NCJ 176335).
9NIJ Annual Report 1998
Translating basic research into action has been
characterized as “a cyclical process.”5 It involves
diagnosing the problem, developing solutions, planning
and implementing action steps, evaluating the results,
making mid-course corrections, and repeating the
steps. Two distinguishing features of applied research
are the nature of the partnerships that are formed and
the evaluations that are conducted to make programs
and projects work.
PartnershipsIn 1997, NIJ published a report to Congress called
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s
Promising.6 The authors concluded that seven enti-
ties—communities, families, schools, labor markets,
places, police, and criminal justice agencies—are
interdependent in affecting crime at the local
level. NIJ’s applied research program frequently
encompasses many of these institutions.
Criminal Justice Partnerships. In the researcher
and practitioner model, both parties work hand-in-glove
to develop strategies and solutions to community
problems.
Some research partnerships, such as Boston’s
Ceasefire Project, involve multiple Federal, State,
and local agencies and community groups with multiple
perspectives on the problem. These types of projects
often involve several midcourse adjustments.
When Boston wanted to stop youth violence and
homicide, a partnership—composed of researchers,
community leaders, members of the clergy, probation
officers, police officials, and Federal enforcement
agency personnel—came together to devise a strategy
to intervene in the local gun market. When data
revealed that the problem was more specifically caused
In 1996, the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections
instituted get-tough policies—such as phone monitor-
ing, increased use of narcotic-detecting electronic
devices on visitors, and increased cell searches using
drug-sniffing dogs—to tackle the serious problem of
drug use in several of its State prisons.
Before the changes were put in place, NIJ researchers
analyzed data from samples of hair and urine from
inmates to determine the extent to which inmates
were using drugs. Urinalysis was used to reveal
short-term, recent use, and hair analysis was used
to reveal sporadic or episodic use that might have
occurred over a period of several months.
Two years later, researchers analyzed a second wave of
samples and compared the pre- and posttest results to
assess the effectiveness of the new drug interdiction
measures. The results: The number of inmates who
tested positive for illegal drugs decreased nearly
80 percent during the 2-year period.4 The research,
the first of its kind within a State prison system, not
only provided feedback to prison administrators about
the effectiveness of their methods, it also contributed
to a better understanding of the effects of prison-
based drug detection and interdiction strategies
and the prevalence of drug use within prisons. As
important, it demonstrated both the advantages and
challenges of using hair analysis to detect drug use
in prison.
Applied Research
4 Feucht, Thomas E., and Andrew Keyser, “Reducing Drug Usein Prisons: Pennsylvania’s Approach,” NIJ Journal, October1998 (JR 000241):10–15.
5 Elden, Max, and Rupert Chishol, “Emerging Varieties ofAction Research: Introduction to the Special Issue,” HumanRelations 46(2) (1993): 121–41.6 Sherman, Lawrence W., Denise Gottfredson, DorisMacKenzie, John Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway,Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’s Promising,A Report to the United States Congress, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, 1997 (NCJ165366). The full report was followed in 1998 with a condensedsummary especially suited to policymakers and practitioners(Sherman et al., Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,What’s Promising, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998(NCJ 171676).
10
Overview of the Year
by youth gangs, not simply gun markets, the partnership
adjusted its strategies. Boston’s hard work paid off:
youth homicides fell by two-thirds after the Ceasefire
strategy was put in place.
NIJ is now supporting a five-city effort that is similar to
Boston’s. The Strategic Approaches to Community
Safety Initiative involves teams led by the local U.S.
attorney and composed of local law enforcement offi-
cials, criminal justice agencies, other community stake-
holders, and a research partner. The goal is to identify
and tackle their communities’ most pressing problems.
During 1998, the teams identified their problems, ana-
lyzed data to confirm their hypotheses, and began draw-
ing up their action steps. Among the first things they
learned were that they were not accustomed to thinking
and acting as partners and their “corporate cultures”
varied tremendously. They also learned that data can
confirm or reject their “hunches” about the cause of
their crime problems.
The five Strategic Approaches to Community Safety
Initiative sites are:
Site Target Crime Problem
Indianapolis, Indiana Homicide
Memphis, Tennessee Sexual assault
New Haven, Connecticut Gun-related crime
Portland, Oregon Youth violence
Winston-Salem,North Carolina Youth violence
During 1999, the researchers will provide strategic
feedback as the practitioners implement the action
steps. Policymakers and community leaders will be
watching the results carefully for the impact on the
community. A national assessment also is in place to
draw cross-site lessons and understand common
factors that lead to success.
Multidisciplinary Research Partnerships. As
criminal justice practitioners and policymakers clamor
to figure out what works, they look to a wider research
community for answers, including educators, public
health specialists, engineers, and psychologists. Science
naturally evolves to encompass multiple disciplines—
research that starts as social or forensic science often
evolves to include epidemiology, technology, geography,
psychosociology, life-course studies, and prevention
research. Just as it has taken time for criminal justice
methodologies to mature, so too has it taken time to
recognize that so many fields touch criminal justice.
Multidisciplinary partnerships play a major role in sev-
eral areas of NIJ’s research, evaluation, and technology
portfolio. Funding partners in NIJ’s family violence pro-
gram, for example, include the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention and the National Institutes of
Health. NIJ’s partners in several technology projects
include various branches of the U.S. Departments of
Defense, Transportation, Commerce, and Energy. The
Institute’s international perspectives on criminal jus-
tice naturally involve colleagues at the U.S. Department
of State and researchers and practitioners from other
countries.
When Boston wanted to stop youth violence
and homicide, a partnership—composed
of researchers, community leaders, members
of the clergy, probation officers, police
officials, and Federal enforcement agency
personnel—came together to devise a strategy
to intervene in the local gun market. When data
revealed that the problem was more specifically
caused by youth gangs, not simply gun markets, the
partnership adjusted its strategies. Boston’s hard
work paid off: youth homicides fell by two-thirds
after the Ceasefire strategy was put in place.
11NIJ Annual Report 1998
EvaluationEvaluation is an important aspect of NIJ’s larger
mission to identify programs of proven success and
to understand why they work. As researchers examine
innovative programs, they analyze all aspects of the
effort and provide feedback—both positive and
negative. Knowing what doesn’t work is equally
as valuable as knowing what does. These objective,
reliable evaluations are helping communities as
they strive to prevent and reduce crime in their
neighborhoods.
One portion of NIJ’s evaluation portfolio consists of
national evaluations of major congressional anticrime
initiatives. These are conducted under NIJ’s statutory
mandate to report to Congress and the public on
the lessons learned from national-level programs.
Several major national evaluations were funded
in 1998:
• An evaluation of law enforcement programs
designed to encourage arrest will document the
type and extent of arrest policies in cases of
domestic violence in 20 sites and the impact on
victim well-being and offender accountability in
5 of the sites.
• The Juvenile Accountability Incentive
Block Grant program encourages States
to hold juveniles to strict accountability for
delinquent behavior. A State is eligible for
funds by demonstrating that it is actively consider-
ing or will consider legislation, policy, or practices
that provide accountability-based sanctions, such
as transferring violent and repeat juvenile offend-
ers to adult court.
• An evaluation of victim assistance
programs will assess the effectiveness of State
victim compensation and assistance programs.
The project will obtain information from the
victims’ viewpoint, including assessments of the
services available to victims, identification of
unmet needs, and suggestions for improving
the delivery of and payment for services to
crime victims.
In addition, several national evaluations concluded their
analyses and reported findings during 1998:
The National Evaluation of the Youth Firearm
Violence Initiative. This project examined firearms
reduction strategies in 10 sites, identified the factors
that contributed to the program’s successes and
failures, and suggested strategies that could be
transferred to other jurisdictions.
The evaluation focused on implementation and
operation in five of the cities (Birmingham, Alabama;
Bridgeport, Connecticut; Milwaukee, Wisconsin;
Richmond, Virginia; and Seattle, Washington) and on
crime impact and process issues in the other five cities
(Baltimore, Maryland; Cleveland, Ohio; Inglewood,
California; Salinas, California; and San Antonio, Texas).
A number of factors varied considerably from site
to site:
• The strategic emphasis (traditional enforcement
or prevention and education).
• The tactical approach to enforcement (saturation or
directed patrol, search warrants, probation stops
and searches, knock and talk, bar checks, or use of
informants).
• Police organizational structure (dedicated, full-time
units or staffing by rotation with overtime).
• The geographic focus (citywide or defined target
areas).
• The population targeted (general population, gangs,
or identified individuals).
The evaluation found considerable variation in the
number of arrests made (less than 100 to more than
1,000) and the number of guns seized (less than
40 to more than 250). To a large extent, the number
of arrests and seizures was influenced by the choices
the sites made in strategy and tactics. A city that
emphasized prevention and education, for instance,
had fewer arrests and seizures than one that empha-
sized traditional enforcement techniques, such as
patrol and stop and search.
12
Overview of the Year
In half of the cities where an impact evaluation was
conducted, a relationship between the intervention and
gun-crime trends was evident. In the remainder, changes
in the target area did not differ much from trends in the
city at large. Using data from Salinas, California, the
researchers examined the 2-year relationship between
gun-related arrest rates and subsequent gun-related
crimes, taking into account the total level of crime (the
crime index) in the surrounding county. The researchers
found that gun crimes, the general crime index, and gun-
related arrests were related as follows: a 10-percentage
point increase in the crime index was associated with
one additional gun crime in Salinas, California, and an
increase of five gun-related arrests was associated with
one less subsequent gun crime in that town.
This finding suggests that enforcement directed at
firearms possession and use has a systematic, measur-
able impact on gun crime.
Assault Weapons Ban. An NIJ-funded look at the
short-term effects of the assault weapons ban (Title
XVIII of the Violent Crime Control Act of 1994) found
the following:7
• The ban triggered speculative price increases and
ramped-up production of the banned firearms prior
to the law’s implementation, followed by a substantial
postban drop in prices to levels of previous years.
• Criminal use of the banned guns declined, at least
temporarily, after the law went into effect, which
suggests that the legal stock of preban assault
weapons was, at least for the short term, largely in
the hands of collectors and dealers.
• The ban may have contributed to a reduction in the
gun murder rate and the murder of police officers
by criminals armed with assault weapons.
• The ban has failed to reduce the average number of
victims per gun murder incident or multiple gun-
shot wound victims.
An evaluation is now under way of the long-term effects
of the ban on semiautomatic assault weapons and large-
capacity ammunition magazines. It is examining the
impact increased juvenile restrictions and regulation of
Federal firearms licenses are having on violent crime.
National Evaluation of the Violence Against
Women Act Grants. This ongoing project documents
the range of programs funded by the STOP (Services,
Training, Officers, Prosecutors) grants program for law
enforcement and prosecution under the Violence
Against Women Act. The evaluation is assessing grantee
outcomes and planning and implementation efforts,
along with developing a strategy for documenting long-
term impacts. Reports on the evaluation of STOP for-
mula grants were prepared in 1996 and 1997. The 1998
report found the following:8
• In fiscal year 1998, 54 of the 56 States and territo-
ries eligible for STOP funds received them—
7 Roth, Jeffrey A., and Christopher S. Koper, Impacts of the1994 Assault Weapons Ban: 1994–96, Research in Brief,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, March 1999 (NCJ 173405).8 Burt, Martha, Lisa C. Newmark, Lisa K. Jacobs, and Adele V.Harrell, 1998 Report: Evaluation of the STOP Formula GrantsUnder the Violence Against Women Act of 1994, Washington,D.C.: Urban Institute, July 1998.
The Weed and Seed strategy brings together
Federal, State, and local crime fighting agencies;
social service providers; business owners and
other representatives of the private sector;
and neighborhood residents—linking them in a
shared goal of “weeding” out violent criminals,
drug trafficking, drug-related crime, and gang
activity in targeted areas while “seeding” the area
with social services, economic revitalization, and
neighborhood reclamation projects.
13NIJ Annual Report 1998
A significant portion of NIJ’s portfolio of research and
evaluation relates to the development and demonstra-
tion of better technology for law enforcement and
corrections.
In fiscal years 1996–98, Congress set aside 1 percent
of Crime Act law enforcement funds to create, in each of
these years, a $20-million fund at NIJ for investment in
law enforcement and criminal justice technology.
Congress also began funding a program to improve State-
operated DNA laboratories (discussed on pages 6 and 7).
In fiscal years 1997 and 1998, Congress also appropriat-
ed funds for the development of domestic counterter-
rorism technologies. Those funds have been used to
expand technology development and demonstrations
for State and local law enforcement and corrections
agencies.
totaling more than $130 million—within 3 months
of the congressional appropriation.
• The majority of the grants are providing direct
services to victims, alone or in combination with
other activities. Training for law enforcement and
prosecution is the focus of nearly a quarter of
the projects.
• More than 90 percent of the subgrantees required
to provide matching funds did so.
• All States submitted certification, as required,
showing that victims do not bear the costs of
prosecuting offenders in sexual assault or domestic
violence cases.
Other ongoing evaluations of the STOP grants program
include reviews of agencies that set police training
standards, an examination of the States’ capacity
to comply with the full faith and credit provision of
the Violence Against Women Act, and a study of the
effects of the grants on raising awareness among
tribal leaders.
Weed and Seed. The Weed and Seed strategy
brings together Federal, State, and local crime
fighting agencies; social service providers; business
owners and other representatives of the private
sector; and neighborhood residents—linking them
in a shared goal of “weeding” out violent criminals,
drug trafficking, drug-related crime, and gang activity
in targeted areas while “seeding” the area with
social services, economic revitalization, and neighbor-
hood reclamation projects.
During 1998, evaluators presented their report and
recommendations about Weed and Seed efforts in
10 communities in 8 different cities. Major findings
and recommendations include:
• Pre-existing community features—such as the
strength of the social and institutional infrastructure,
the severity of the crime problem, geographical
advantages favoring economic development,
and transiency of the population—may make
Weed and Seed easier or more difficult to
effectively implement.
• The mix of weeding and seeding activities and
the sequence in which these components are
introduced appear to be important factors in
gaining community support for the program.
• Sites appeared to have greater success if they
concentrated their program resources on smaller
population groups, especially if they could channel
other public funds into similar activities and
leverage private funds.
• The more successful programs tended to have
the active and constructive leadership of key
individuals in the community.
• The most effective implementation strategies
were those that relied on bottom-up, participatory
decisionmaking approaches.
Technology Development
14
Overview of the Year
NIJ has responded to this expanded mandate by creating
an integrated mix of science and technology strategies.
To make sure NIJ is addressing the needs of State and
local agencies, the Institute regularly consults with
practitioners, primarily the 150 members of the Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Advisory
Council (LECTAC). The priorities identified by the
Council are translated into an agenda for funding
science and technology research and development
programs.
The top technology needs of the law enforcement and
corrections communities, as identified by LECTAC,
include the following:
• Concealed weapons and contraband
detection. NIJ and the U.S. Departments of
Defense and Transportation are the leaders
in the development of relatively inexpensive,
easy-to-use concealed weapons detection
technology.
• Vehicle-stopping technology. Research is under
way on a variety of new and innovative technologies
that can be used to safely and effectively stop a vehi-
cle. In 1998, NIJ completed the process to commer-
cialize the Road Spike™ tire deflation device—a
retractable strip designed to be carried in the trunk
of a car and rolled onto the highway well in advance
of a fleeing vehicle. The Road Spike™ deploys
retractable hollow metal spikes that will puncture,
embed in, and release the air out of a tire in several
minutes. This device prevents the driver from losing
control of the vehicle and allows pursuit vehicles to
quickly catch up and arrest the suspect.
In a related area, NIJ supported the Pursuit Manage-
ment Task Force, a multidisciplinary group that
defined contemporary police pursuit practices and
the role of technology in managing high-speed vehic-
ular pursuits. The Task Force issued recommenda-
tions regarding the development and application of
technology in pursuit management.
In 1998, NIJ issued a solicitation for proposals to
test electromagnetic devices designed to stop
vehicles and completed a strategic plan for NIJ’s
vehicle-stopping program.
• Investigative and forensic science initia-
tives. A major focus of NIJ’s investigative and
forensic science technologies portfolio is the identi-
fication and development of evidence to solve crimi-
nal cases. Among areas of interest in which NIJ is
funding research are the following: DNA analysis,
trace evidence, questioned documents examination,
fingerprints, firearms, and teleforensics.
Once research begins uncovering the cause-and-effect
factors that contribute to certain social conditions,
criminal behaviors, or phenomena, science can begin
experiments that test the validity of various hypotheses.
Testing and experimenting, however, must be accompa-
nied by rigorous evaluation of the effects—intended
and unintended—of the mechanisms employed to
improve the situation, eliminate the behavior, or reduce
the effects of the phenomenon. NIJ supported several
important demonstration tests during 1998.
Breaking the Drug Abuse-Crime Cycle. Since
1997, the Institute has supported a program in
Birmingham, Alabama, that is testing the hypothesis that
a systemwide effort to use drug testing, mandatory
treatment, enhanced judicial involvement, and other
interventions with all arrested adults with a history of
illicit drug use will reduce drug abuse and criminal
behavior. Much of the funding for this initiative was
provided by the White House’s Office of National Drug
Control Policy. During 1998, NIJ extended the program to
two more sites and one juvenile justice site.
Testing New Ideas and Technology
15NIJ Annual Report 1998
At the end of 1998, NIJ awarded $3 million each to
Jacksonville, Florida, and Tacoma, Washington, to
implement jurisdictionwide intervention strategies
designed to identify, supervise, and treat all adult
drug-using defendants and $2 million to the Eugene,
Oregon, site targeting juvenile drug offenders. The
results of a process and impact evaluation will become
available in 2000.
Reducing Corrections and Police Officer
Stress. Since 1996, NIJ has awarded 25 grants to
support activities to better understand and reduce
the harmful effects of stress on law enforcement
and correctional officers and their families. Congress
established the program under Title XXI of the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994. Among
other development activities, the program consists of
demonstration and research grants awarded to State
and local law enforcement and corrections agencies or
their affiliated support organizations, such as unions
and professional associations. The grants are being
used to develop and promote education, training, and
treatment programs at the local level. Several programs
are comparing stress intervention methods, conducting
research on the extent and nature of stress among
officers, and examining critical incident stress debrief-
ings. NIJ intends to publicize results from the innova-
tive programs to reduce stress as the early findings
become available.
Developing Standards and Testing
Products. In the realm of technology, NIJ pioneers
efforts to find advanced technological methods of
deterring, identifying, and apprehending criminals.
It supports the exploration and creation of alternative
techniques to improve criminal justice practice.
The Forensic DNA Lab Improvement Program is a
good example. The Program is increasing the capacity
of State and local forensic laboratories to support
criminal investigations involving biological evidence
recovered from crime scenes. State and local labs
are purchasing equipment, supplies, and training
to both upgrade and standardize their forensic
DNA labs.
Improving old technologies and developing new ones
introduces the need to develop standards against which
to measure the usefulness of the technology. NIJ not only
develops such performance standards for equipment and
technology, it also supports testing of products against
those standards. This way, law enforcement and correc-
tions agencies can make more informed decisions about
the equipment they purchase. NIJ does not recommend
particular brands of products. Rather, it tests many
brands and distributes lists of products that have passed
the standardized tests showing the strength, endurance,
and performance of a particular product.
Testing and research have led to performance
standards for more than 60 types of criminal justice
equipment, including handguns, soft body armor,
patrol cars, and handcuffs.
NIJ’s primary partner in the development of standards
and the testing of products is the Office of Law
Enforcement Standards at the National Institute of
Standards and Technology, U.S. Department of
Commerce.
In the realm of technology, NIJ pioneers efforts
to find advanced technological methods of
deterring, identifying, and apprehending criminals.
It supports the exploration and creation of
alternative techniques to improve criminal
justice practice.
16
Overview of the Year During this last decade, many economic and social
phenomena—including crime—previously confined
by national boundaries have exploded across the
globe. The globalization of financial markets and
communications systems, the easing of international
transportation, the tearing down of the Berlin Wall,
and the collapse of the Soviet Union have all con-
tributed mightily to an international and transnational
crime problem. The illicit movement of people, money,
goods, and services across national borders has creat-
ed new challenges for law enforcement and the admin-
istration of justice. New kinds of crimes—such as
human trafficking; cybercrime; international money
laundering; and transnational trafficking in drugs, arms,
and stolen autos—are confronting not only Federal
authorities, but also State and local law enforcement.
The impact of these developments clearly is being felt
on the streets of America.
NIJ created an International Center in 1997 to
coordinate international activities within the Office
of Justice Programs and NIJ, to help inform policymak-
ing on transnational issues, and to promote the
global exchange of criminal justice research
information. The latter task involves both exporting
American research and practice information abroad
and importing the best research and practices from
around the world. (See, for example, “ADAM Goes
International.”) The International Center’s primary
constituents are American policymakers, practitioners,
researchers, and scholars.
Expanding the Horizons
ADAM Goes International
An international component of the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring (ADAM) program held its first strategic
planning meeting in Miami, Florida, in April 1998. In attendance were representatives from:
• Eight nations (Australia, Chile, England, the Netherlands, Panama, Scotland, South Africa, and Uruguay).
• Two international organizations (Organization of American States and the United Nations Drug
Control Program).
• Experts in the field of drug testing systems.
• NIJ staff.
• Representatives of U.S. Federal agencies (such as the Justice Department’s Drug Enforcement
Administration and the Department of Health and Human Services’ National Institute on Alcohol Abuse
and Alcoholism).
In total, 40 people attended the conference.
With its launching, International ADAM (I-ADAM) became one of only a few international drug prevalence
measures and the only international drug testing system for monitoring the drug use rates of arrestees.
I-ADAM’s development is important because the existing drug surveillance systems differ from one another
to such an extent that comparisons among countries are difficult.
From its inception, I-ADAM was designed to be a standardized international system that will use similar
instruments, sampling, training, and other protocols. By 1999, six of the eight strategic planning countries—
Australia, Chile, England, the Netherlands, Scotland, and South Africa—will have started collecting I-ADAM data.
Comparative data will be analyzed and the results will be published as they become available.
Visit the ADAM Web site at http://www.adam-nij.net.
17NIJ Annual Report 1998
In 1998, the Center undertook a number of activities to
fulfill its coordinating role and to facilitate comparative
and transnational research, including the following:
• Three international challenge grants were
awarded to support research on (1) comparative
juvenile justice processing in Denver, Colorado, and
Bremen, Germany; (2) human trafficking from
Fuzhou, China; and (3) the commercial sexual
exploitation of children trafficked into the United
States through Canada and Mexico.
• Major research partnerships were begun with
Israel, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom.
• An international visiting fellow was brought to
NIJ from Russia to share knowledge about transna-
tional organized crime in the former Soviet Union.
• The international visitor program coordinat-
ed meetings with 117 visitors from 34 countries.
In addition, work proceeded on the International
Center’s Web site, linking the World Justice
Information Network and the National Criminal Justice
Reference Service to provide an electronic network
serving the worldwide criminal justice community.
(See “NIJ’s World Wide Web Presence.”)
The International Center is the vehicle for extending
NIJ’s research and development role onto the global
stage. As the face of crime takes on an increasingly
international cast, our level of understanding and ability
to respond must change. It is the Center’s mission to
inform and enlighten that process.
One of NIJ’s primary goals is to disseminate science-
based findings and their related policy implications as
widely as possible. One path involves traditional mecha-
nisms—publications, conferences, and face-to-face
meetings. The other path is an electronic one where
information-sharing occurs instantly in cyberspace.
Reaching Out Via CyberspaceSince NIJ’s World Wide Web site was unveiled in 1997,
it has continued to grow and be refined, especially
in regard to content and ease of access. The site
regularly posts newly released publications, which
can be downloaded directly or requested through
the National Criminal Justice Reference Service
(NCJRS). The site also posts news about awards,
grants, solicitations, upcoming conferences, and
links to related sites. In addition, visitors can learn
detailed information about NIJ’s programs.
The newest addition to the NIJ Web site is NIJ News.
Launched in June 1998, the online newsletter features
articles from the director on current issues, along with
coordinated articles, announcements, and links to relat-
ed sites. The newsletter has been expanding its format
to reach a broader audience and soliciting feedback on
possible improvements. Like other segments of NIJ’s
Web site, the newsletter helps bridge the time gap
of print media by making information available to
audiences sooner.
Sharing Knowledge
Since NIJ’s World Wide Web site was unveiled
in 1997, it has continued to grow and be
refined, especially in regard to content
and ease of access.
18
Overview of the Year
NIJ’s World Wide Web Presence
In addition to NIJ’s Home Page (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij), several of NIJ’s programmatic and topic areashave their own Web presence:
• The Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring programtracks trends in the prevalence and types of drugabuse among booked arrestees in an urban network ofsites across the United States and several internationalsites (http://www.adam-nij.net).
• Breaking the Cycle is a systemwide interventiondesigned to identify and treat all defendants in need ofsubstance abuse treatment. The approach focuses onmaintaining continuous treatment as the defendantmoves through the system (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/brekprog.htm).
• The Corrections and Law Enforcement FamilySupport program is discovering innovative ways to prevent and treat the negative effects of stressexperienced by law enforcement and correctional officers and their families (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/clefs/welcome.html).
• The Crime Mapping Research Center promotes the research and development of GIS (geographicinformation systems) and crime mapping to identify,solve, and monitor crime problems in communities(http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cmrc).
• The Data Resources Program ensures the preser-vation and availability of research and evaluation datacollected through NIJ-funded research. Datasets col-lected through NIJ-funded research are archived andmade available to other scientists to support new re-search to replicate original findings or test new hypo-theses (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dataprog.htm).
• The National Commission on the Future of DNA Evidence posts announcements and transcripts of meetings and summaries of working group meetings. The site will post theCommission’s forthcoming report and recom-mendations (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/dna/ welcome.html).
• The Sentencing and Adjudication programannounces funds for research, including fellowship and NIJ-funded grant awards in the areas of judicial
decisionmaking, courts management, specializedcourts, prosecution, defense, impact of legislation,sentencing outcomes, structured sentencing, and thegeneral topic of sentencing (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/saap/welcome.html).
• Technology Development Portfolios describe pro-grammatic areas related to crime prevention, officerprotection, less-than-lethal weapons, investigative andforensic sciences, information sharing and analysis,counterterrorism, training, and simulation (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/sciencetech/welcome.html).
• The Violence Against Women and FamilyViolence program features research on the safety of women and family members and the effec-tiveness of the criminal justice system’s response tothese crimes (http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/vawprog/welcome.html).
In addition to NIJ’s programmatic Web sites, the Institutesupports several additional Web sites:
• JUSTNET is a gateway to information on new tech-nologies, equipment, and other products and servicesavailable to the law enforcement, corrections, andcriminal justice communities. The JUSTNET site con-tains news and information services, interactive chatlines and topic boards, data and publications, and linksto related sites (http://www.nlectc.org).
• The Partnerships Against Violence Network(PAVNET) is a database on violence prevention pro-grams, curricula, and funding. With more than 500subscribers, the PAVNET listserv is an important onlinesource of information for professionals and volunteersin the violence prevention, education, treatment, andenforcement fields (http://www.pavnet.org).
• The World Justice Information Network (WJIN) isa multilingual communications tool and a professionalforum for concerned citizens worldwide. Through apartnership with Globalink, WJIN members can instant-ly translate documents, send e-mail, and chat online inFrench, German, Italian, Portuguese, Russian, andSpanish, with other languages to be added in thefuture (http://www.wjin.net).
Several NIJ program areas have greatly expanded their
presence on the Web during the past year, adding links
to publications, announcements about events, other
sites, and summaries of grants. (See “NIJ’s World
Wide Web Presence.”)
19NIJ Annual Report 1998
Reaching Out Via Traditional MeansEven as electronic distribution and dissemination took
on heightened visibility and intensity this year, tradi-
tional modes of dissemination continued to be highly
popular with NIJ’s audience. (See “Most Popular
Publications Released in Fiscal Year 1998.”)
Publications. NIJ’s published materials fall into three
major categories:
• Concise summaries of research or
programs. These publications, which range
from 4 to 32 pages, discuss findings from discrete
projects or programs. Included in this category are
several newsletters and the Research in Brief,
Research in Action, Research Preview, and Program
Focus series. This year, NIJ’s newsletter TechBeat,
which is issued quarterly and devoted to keeping
readers up to date on technologies for use in law
enforcement, corrections, and other criminal jus-
tice agencies, won two national publishing awards.
• Longer discussions of the issues. This cate-
gory of publications includes the Research Report
series, which spans a wide range of topics; the
Issues and Practices in Criminal Justice series,
which features innovative programs designed to
address critical topics of the day; and the Research
Forum series, which highlights papers from NIJ-
sponsored conferences.
• The NIJ Journal. The Institute’s quarterly journal
contains feature articles on thought-provoking
issues, new findings, or research questions of
general interest to policymakers and practitioners.
Cover stories during 1998 included articles on drug
addiction as a brain disease (by Alan Leshner,
director of the National Institute on Drug Abuse);
the challenges of conducting research on crime in
public housing (by Jeffrey Fagan and colleagues at
Columbia University); and Boston’s interdisciplinary
and multiagency approach to crime prevention
(by David Kennedy, senior researcher at Harvard
University’s John F. Kennedy School of Government).
• Crime and Justice. NIJ supports the Crime and
Justice series, which provides comprehensive,
authoritative, and balanced summaries of current
knowledge, prior experience, and promising future
inquiries in the field. Editor Michael Tonry and an 11-
member editorial board of prominent scholars guide
Most Popular Publications Releasedin Fiscal Year 1998
(as measured by orders for copies, requests for more information, and inquiries
from the media)
• National Guidelines for Death Investigation,by the National Medicolegal Review Panel,
Research Report, February 1998 (NCJ
167568).
• Crack, Powder Cocaine, and Heroin: DrugPurchase and Use Patterns in Six U.S. Cities,by K. Jack Riley, Research Report, March
1998 (NCJ 167265).
• Kids, COPS, and Communities, by Marcia R.
Chaiken, Issues and Practices, April 1998
(NCJ 169599).
• Stalking in America: Findings From theNational Violence Against Women Survey, by
Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Research
in Brief, June 1998 (NCJ 169592).
• Protective Intelligence and Threat AssessmentInvestigations, by Robert A. Fein and Bryan
Vossekuil, Research Report, July 1998
(NCJ 170612).
• ADAM: 1997 Annual Report on Adult andJuvenile Arrestees, by K. Jack Riley, Research
Report, July 1998 (NCJ 171672).
• Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t,What’s Promising, by Lawrence W. Sherman,
Denise Gottfredson, Doris MacKenzie, John
Eck, Peter Reuter, and Shawn Bushway,
Research in Brief, July 1998 (NCJ 171676).
• Crime in the Schools: A Problem-SolvingApproach, by Dennis Kenney, Research
Preview, August 1998 (FS 000224).
• Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences ofViolence Against Women: Findings From theNational Violence Against Women Survey, by
Patricia Tjaden and Nancy Thoennes, Research
in Brief, November 1998 (NCJ 172837).
20
Overview of the Year
the series, which is published by the University of
Chicago Press. Each annual volume contains essays
from nationally acclaimed researchers and other
experts. Occasionally, an issue with a single theme,
such as youth violence or prisons, is published.
A complete list of the publications produced in fiscal
year 1998 can be found in appendix B.
Meetings and Other Gatherings. NIJ uses confer-
ences, panels, lectures, seminars, workshops, and
other meetings to stimulate discussion, shape its
research agenda, and resolve scientific controversies.
Such face-to-face gatherings, which encourage frank
discussions and debate, are one of the best ways to
share information and shape future research activity.
Far too many gatherings occurred in 1998 to list in this
report. However, highlights include:
• Technology fair. In March 1998, NIJ displayed an
array of technology (both under development and
commercially available) at a technology fair held in
the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill.
Members of Congress and their staffs visited
numerous booths examining state-of-the-art
equipment for law enforcement and correctional
officers and discussing the issues surrounding
these new technologies.
Equipment featured at the fair included telemedi-
cine for correctional settings, thermal imagers
(which resemble palm-size camcorders and allow
officers to see in the dark), devices that allow
officers to translate simple phrases from English
into another language so they can communicate
with non-English speaking citizens, and guns that
can be fired only by an authorized user.
• Perspectives lectures. To promote informed
and rational discourse, NIJ established the first
Perspectives on Crime and Justice series in 1996.
Since then, NIJ has invited the Nation’s most promi-
nent scholars to share their policy perspectives
with an audience of opinion leaders, congressional
staff, Federal officials, journalists, policymakers,
researchers, and criminal justice professionals.
Speakers are asked to challenge conventional
thinking, offer candid recommendations, and
stimulate a robust debate. Their collected lectures
are published in the Research Forum series.
The 1998 series featured the following scholars:
– George Kelling, “Crime Control, the Police, and
Culture Wars: Broken Windows and Cultural
Pluralism,” December 1997.
– Randall Kennedy, “Race, the Police, and
‘Reasonable Suspicion,’” February 1998.
– David Musto, “The American Experience With
Stimulants and Opiates,” March 1998.
– Joan Petersilia, “A Decade of Experimenting With
Intermediate Sanctions: What Have We Learned,”
April 1998.
– Philip Cook, “The Epidemic of Youth Gun
Violence,” May 1998.
• Annual research and evaluation conference.
Every summer, NIJ cosponsors with other Office of
Justice Programs offices and bureaus a conference
for practitioners, policymakers, and researchers on
the latest research and evaluation. The 1998 confer-
ence, titled “Viewing Crime and Justice From a
Collaborative Perspective,” focused on the rewards
and challenges of collaborative endeavors with the
community and other partners. More than 750 peo-
ple attended.
• National Academy of Sciences workshops.
The National Research Council of the National
Academy of Sciences is a key partner with NIJ in the
effort to increase scientific understanding of crime
and justice, identify new areas of research, and pro-
mote theory development. During 1998, the National
Research Council, through its Committee on
Law and Justice and with NIJ support, conducted
workshops on transnational crime and pathological
gambling.
The transnational crime workshop focused on
defining the issues and measuring the problem
while considering the interface between legal
and illegal activities and the implications of
21NIJ Annual Report 1998
transnational crime for local law enforcement. The
workshop’s report, Transnational Organized Crime:
Summary of a Workshop, edited by Peter Reuter and
Carol Petrie, is available from the National
Academy Press at http://www.nas.edu.
The project on pathological gambling is studying
data sources that can produce reliable measures
of the prevalence of pathological gambling and its
multiple impacts. The project also is examining the
factors that cause or mitigate problem gambling
and its social and economic costs. The National
Research Council’s Report, Pathological Gambling:
A Critical Review, is available from the National
Academy Press at http://www.nas.edu.
• Executive sessions on corrections and
sentencing. The effects of sentencing reforms,
the continuing increase in the inmate population,
and concerns about the effects of large numbers
of former inmates returning to their communities
have prompted NIJ and the Corrections Program
Office to jointly sponsor a multiyear series of meet-
ings at which a group of researchers and practition-
ers examine major issues surrounding sentencing
and corrections. Using commissioned papers as
the basis for their meetings, practitioners and
scholars discuss a variety of topics. Five sessions
are planned; three were held in fiscal year 1998.
The papers will be published as they become
available.
• Technology Institutes. Since 1997, NIJ has
brought State and local law enforcement practition-
ers together to introduce them to the array of tech-
nology and technical assistance available from the
Federal Government and teach practitioners about
the many ways technology can help them confront
current challenges. This year, NIJ introduced a
Technology Institute designed especially for
correctional practitioners. The 23 practitioners
selected by NIJ visited several Federal agencies
in the Washington, D.C., area to learn how they
can improve the detection of drugs and contraband
in facilities and among probationers and parolees,
how to improve security in facilities, and how to
exchange information and share their experiences
and lessons learned.
• Multinational peacekeeping missions.
Civilian police are increasingly being used in multi-
national peacekeeping missions around the world.
During 1998, NIJ, in conjunction with the Police
Executive Research Forum and the Center for
Strategic and International Studies, convened a
workshop that brought together public safety spe-
cialists with experience in peacekeeping missions
in Bosnia, Haiti, Somalia, and Central America. The
group addressed a range of issues related to the
limitations of the United Nations CIVPOL (civilian
police) unit, particularly its inability to provide
effective oversight and logistical support for field
operations. NIJ published the proceedings of the
conference.9
• National Governors’ Association and
juvenile crime. NIJ and the Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention worked closely
with the National Governors’ Association’s Center
for Best Practices to develop three regional policy
forums on crime prevention and the effective
administration of juvenile justice and corrections.
After each forum, the Center published an Issue
Brief highlighting the issues, research findings,
and best practices in the field.10
Reaching Out Through an Information NetworkThe NCJRS is one of the most extensive sources of
information on criminal and juvenile justice in the
world, providing services to an international community
of policymakers and professionals. Sponsored by NIJ,
its Office of Justice Programs partners, and the Office
of National Drug Control Policy, NCJRS functions as a
dynamic information clearinghouse, responding to
more than 5,000 requests each month from around the
world. Its database of abstracts, available on the Web,
contains summaries of more than 150,000 documents.
The complete text of more than 1,500 documents is
available on its Web site (http://www.ncjrs.org).
9 Burack, James, William Lewis, Edward Marks, David H. Bayley,Robert M. Perito, and Michael Berkow, Civilian Policing andMultinational Peacekeeping—A Workshop Series: A Role forDemocratic Policing, NIJ Research Forum, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,January 1999 (NCJ 172842).10 The Issue Briefs are posted at http://www.nga.org.
M a k i n g C o m m u n i t i e s S a f e r
T a k i n g S t e p s t oP r e v e n t C r i m e
F i n d i n g N e w W a y s o fW o r k i n g T o g e t h e r
E x p l o r i n g I s s u e s o fS p e c i a l C o n c e r n
23NIJ Annual Report 1998
Monitoring Arrestees’ Drug UseReveals Community Trends
Research has firmly established the link between drug
use and subsequent criminal behavior. NIJ has been
tracking drug use among booked arrestees since 1987.
Today, through the Arrestee Drug Abuse Monitoring
(ADAM) program, community leaders and their
research partners are following trends in the
prevalence and types of drug use among arrestees
in 35 locations around the Nation.11
ADAM data, which are collected quarterly through
voluntary and anonymous urine testing and interviews,
allow State and local policymakers and analysts to
view trends as they develop and make it possible
to intervene earlier and in a more targeted way.
ADAM offers communities a means to assess the
breadth and characteristics of their particular drug
abuse problems; evaluate, at low cost, programs and
interventions that serve or target the criminally active
population; and plan specific policy interventions
appropriate for local substance abuse problems.
Enhancements in 1998NIJ has developed the capacity to test for a broader
range of drugs than in the past, thus increasing a
community’s ability to detect important local variations
in drug trends. Recent additions to the list of drugs
that can be detected include LSD, inhalants, MDMA
(ecstasy), and flunitrazepam (rohypnol). In addition,
three sexually transmitted diseases—HIV, chlamydia,
and gonorrhea—can be detected in urine.
ADAM also has initiated several projects to improve
drug testing procedures and make results more precise:
• Analyzing the impact that specimen storage and
handling procedures have on drug test results.
• Confirming opiate test results to differentiate
heroin use from medications containing opiate
compounds.
• Testing for metabolites and markers that
indicate crack cocaine use, as opposed to
powder cocaine use.
ADAM’s interview instrument was redesigned to
concentrate on issues of interest to policymakers
and practitioners. The new instrument increases the
ability to calculate the prevalence of drug dependency,
determine the prevalence of need for treatment, and
illuminate drug market dynamics.
Interest From AbroadADAM has sparked international interest, and last year
the program held its first gathering of representatives
from other countries interested in following ADAM
protocols. International ADAM is intended to create a
research partnership among criminal justice organiza-
tions across the world. Drug surveillance or measure-
ment systems in most countries are not compatible,
making comparisons among countries difficult. I-ADAM
addresses this limitation by introducing a standardized
Making Communities Safer
11 ADAM is a geographically expanded and scientifically more rigorous version of NIJ’s Drug Use Forecasting (DUF)program, which operated at 23 sites from 1987 to 1997. The program expanded to 35 sites in 1998.
international surveillance system that will allow
researchers to compare the prevalence of drug use
among arrestees in different nations and assess the
consequences of drug abuse both within and across
national boundaries.
Like the United States, many countries want to track
drug use trends among their arrested population.
I-ADAM can do this as well as collect information to
gain a better understanding about the relationship
between drugs and crime, sources of illegal income
for arrestees, drug dependency, use of substance
abuse treatment, age of onset of drug use, drug
market dynamics, and certain public health topics.
I-ADAM also can contribute to a better understanding
of crime issues that cross national borders, such
as organized crime. I-ADAM data are tools to help
countries coordinate their drug control policies and
resources. Identification of similar drug problems in
different nations can give governments grounds for
such coordination. In addition, spotting a growing
substance abuse problem in a country’s arrestee
population can help predict a potential target for
international drug trafficking.
The Data Collection ProcessSites collect data for a 2-week period, four times a
year. Each site collects data on adult males, and all
but two are currently collecting data on adult females.
Juvenile collection occurs in 12 sites, but is expected
to expand with the FY 2001 appropriations. A random
selection of arrestees are asked to take part in the
study. The interviews are anonymous and confidential,
which contributes to the high proportion of individuals
who consent to participate at most sites.
Staff in individual sites may ask additional questions
geared specifically to their community. Examples of
such questions include:
• Patterns of acquiring and using crack, powder
cocaine, and heroin.
• Patterns of acquiring and using methamphetamine.
• Acquisition of and attitudes toward firearms.
• Definitions of gang membership and participation
in gang activities.
• Attitudes toward and patterns of sexually risky
behaviors.
In January 2000, all ADAM sites will field a new
interview instrument that will focus on three policy
areas: drug use, dependency and need for treatment,
and drug markets. These questions will serve to
elicit information on the frequency and severity of
drug use within each site, estimate the number of
individuals dependent on drugs and in need of treat-
ment, inventory treatment experiences to help assess
how individuals attempt to access treatment, and
show how drug market activity in a community
responds to specific interventions.
24
Selected Highlights
ADAM Tracks Drug Use Trends in 35 Sites
Although most of the 35 ADAM sites in the United
States are referred to by the name of the largest
city in the area, the boundaries (or catchment
areas) of most sites are substantially larger than
the city. In most cases, the catchment area is
the county. (The New York City site, for example,
includes all of the city’s five boroughs.) The 35
sites are:
Albuquerque New OrleansAnchorage New YorkAtlanta Oklahoma CityBirmingham OmahaChicago PhiladelphiaCleveland PhoenixDallas Portland (Oregon)Denver SacramentoDes Moines St. LouisDetroit Salt Lake CityFt. Lauderdale San AntonioHouston San DiegoIndianapolis San JoseLaredo SeattleLas Vegas SpokaneLos Angeles TucsonMiami Washington, D.C.Minneapolis
In addition to the ADAM sites listed above, ADAM
staff provide scientific assistance to domestic and
international affiliated sites, including Albany and
Buffalo, New York; Australia; Chile; England;
Scotland; and South Africa.
25NIJ Annual Report 1998
Local Outreach and InvolvementADAM represents an important partnership with and
among local, State, and national policymakers. Officials
at all levels can tailor aspects of the program to meet
specific needs. For example, officials interested in gang
activity can, together with their local data collection
team, append gang-related questions to the main
interview instrument. Such special studies can be
done on a local, regional, or national basis, depending
on who is interested in the topic. Such research needs
are identified by local coordinating councils, which
also play a big part in disseminating the data to
local planners and policymakers.
Although many law enforcement entities join forces
with agencies in their communities to respond to
crime, relatively few do so in a systematic, integrated
way to analyze information and develop strategic plans
to reduce a specific, targeted problem. Cities that have
experienced the greatest reductions in crime, such as
Boston and New York, have made remarkable efforts
to collectively and comprehensively gather and analyze
information from multiple agencies. Together, these
groups analyze patterns and trends that define the
precise nature of a problem, suggest strategic opportu-
nities for interventions, and develop efficient ways to
employ limited resources.
The Strategic Approaches to Community Safety
Initiative, or SACSI, is a 2-year Department of Justice
project intended to establish integrated and systematic
approaches in five pilot cities:
• Indianapolis, Indiana.
• Memphis, Tennessee.
• New Haven, Connecticut.
• Portland, Oregon.
• Winston-Salem, North Carolina.
SACSI bolsters the use of a collaborative, knowledge-
driven, problem-solving process through which groups
can better identify and analyze their local problems and
devise and implement strategies likely to reduce them.
It builds on the knowledge gained from other compre-
hensive efforts, which have encouraged collaborations
among Federal, State, and local agencies.12
The ProcessThe SACSI approach is unique in that the U.S. attorney
takes on a new role—as community problem solver
and proactive leader in reducing local crime. The U.S.
attorney acts as a catalyst to the strategic approaches
project, undertaking functions and activities not tradi-
tionally assumed by U.S. attorneys or their offices.
For More Information
Visit the NIJ Web site at http://www.adam-nij.net.
The ADAM annual reports for 1998:
1998 Annual Report on Drug Use Among Adult and Juvenile Arrestees
(NCJ 175656).
1998 Annual Report on Cocaine Use Among Arrestees (NCJ 175657).
1998 Annual Report on Marijuana Use Among Arrestees
(NCJ 175658).
1998 Annual Report on Methamphetamine Use Among Arrestees
(NCJ 175660).
1998 Annual Report on Opiate Use Among Arrestees (NCJ 175659).
Cities that have experienced the greatest
reductions in crime, such as Boston and
New York, have made remarkable efforts to
collectively and comprehensively gather and
analyze information from multiple agencies.
Strategic Approaches to Community Safety
12 Comprehensive efforts that contribute to the SACSI modelinclude the Boston Gun Project, the ComprehensiveCommunities Program, and Weed and Seed.
26
Selected Highlights
The U.S. attorney convenes a team of local, State, and
Federal criminal justice practitioners; representatives
from relevant community agencies; and a research part-
ner. This team meets frequently to develop, implement,
and evaluate a crime prevention and reduction strategy
focusing on a major crime problem facing the city. Team
members then work to better utilize both Federal law
enforcement and community resources, making every
effort to coordinate around the identified problem
and desired outcome. They build on existing coalitions
that might include a broad spectrum of individuals and
organizations, consider varying perspectives on the
problem, and lay the foundation for specific strategies
adopted later in the process.
The research partner assists the group in analyzing
information and devising a theory-based strategy to
reduce the target crime problem. The research partner
also takes responsibility for evaluating the effective-
ness of the intervention, suggesting adjustments,
and reevaluating the strategy. Academic partners
unfamiliar with this type of “research in action”
receive guidance and support from NIJ.
Features of the Justice Department’s SupportNumerous components of the Justice Department are
partners in the program: the Office of the Associate
Attorney General, Criminal Division, Executive Office
of U.S. Attorneys, Intergovernmental Affairs, and the
Office of Justice Programs, which includes the Bureau
of Justice Assistance, Bureau of Justice Statistics,
Executive Office of Weed and Seed, National Institute
of Justice, Office for Victims of Crime, Office of the
Assistant Attorney General, Office of Community
Oriented Policing Services, and Office of Juvenile
Justice and Delinquency Prevention.
NIJ’s ongoing support includes grants to local research
partners, funding for project coordinators in the sites,
technical assistance to help sites move toward their
goals, and development and installation of a Community
Safety Information System that will enhance the sites’
ability to combine and analyze data across agencies.
SACSI Takes ShapeInitial formative meetings for SACSI took place during
the spring of 1998. Working groups, researchers,
and project coordinators were then identified in the
summer of 1998. Subsequently, sites began building
broad coalitions and have been gathering information
to identify and better understand their targeted
crime problem. Sites have begun identifying possible
interventions, and in some cases, they have started
implementing their strategies.
State, local, and community partners have experienced
an unparalleled amount of cooperation from a diverse
group of stakeholders. Partners have commented on
the unprecedented involvement of U.S. attorney’s
offices in developing effective local crime reduction
strategies.
Specific crime problems being addressed in pilot
cities include:
• Indianapolis: homicide and gun violence.
• Memphis: sexual assault.
• New Haven: gun violence and community fear.
• Portland: youth gun violence.
• Winston-Salem: youth violence.
Through careful observation of efforts in the pilot juris-
dictions and feedback from the research partners, the
process will be refined and information will be shared
with communities across the country about how to plan
their individualized crime control strategies. This rigor-
ous, dynamic method of addressing crime recognizes
that crime is local. Although specific problems and
solutions will vary by community, SACSI is showing that
when certain steps are included in a strategic planning
and implementation process, the likelihood of success
in fighting local crime rises substantially.
For More Information
National Institute of Justice and Executive Office for Weed and Seed,
What Can the Federal Government Do To Decrease Crime and
Revitalize Communities? October 1998 (NCJ 172210).
Coleman, Veronica, Walter C. Holton, Jr., Kristine Olson, Stephen C. Robinson,
and Judith Stewart, “Using Knowledge and Teamwork To Reduce Crime,”
NIJ Journal, October 1998 (JR 000241): 16–23.
Kennedy, David, “Pulling Levers: Getting Deterrence Right,” NIJ Journal
July 1998 (JR 000236): 2–8.
27NIJ Annual Report 1998
Policing in the United States continues to undergo
dramatic transformation. Heightened focus on the char-
acteristics and the role of the community has changed
the manner in which many police agencies conduct
business and has reshaped much of the thinking about
the nature of law enforcement organizations and the
policing strategies used to combat crime and disorder.
As one author noted, “In well-informed and well-
organized communities, police departments are
increasingly expected to understand the community as
a partner, prepare department personnel for their part
in the partnership process, and support officers in
the process.”13 The view that police departments and
communities are coproducers of safety and public
order is based on research showing that a coproduction
strategy is more effective than a policing style that
distances officers from the public by, in effect,
relegating the community to the sidelines.14
An advantage of encouraging closer police-community
relations is highlighted in a discussion paper prepared
for one of a series of policing meetings on “measuring
what matters,” sponsored by NIJ and the Office of
Community Oriented Policing Services (COPS). Written
by a police chief, the paper notes that police have
begun to think about crime and violence within the
context of neighborhood conditions, education, the
economy, and other demographic factors. Some police
departments, he wrote, “are beginning to look at these
factors to determine the effect of initiatives aimed at
neighborhood problems.”15
For example, a research study sponsored by NIJ and
the Carnegie Corporation of New York observed that in
one of the community-oriented police agencies studied,
officers interacted positively on a daily basis with
persons of all ages, including children. By interacting
with children, “officers learn about family situations
that can be ameliorated through referrals to specialized
community agencies, and occasionally they may learn
about activities, such as child abuse and drug offense
activities, that require law enforcement action.”16
Defining “Community”As law enforcement agencies move closer to the
populace and to their communities, many are defining
“community” broadly to include the cultural, religious,
and ethnic contexts as well as the residents, business-
es, and nonprofit groups in the community.17
When the concept of community is seen in this larger
context, the mission of law enforcement expands from
making the life and possessions of the individual safe
and secure to also ensuring the safety and security of
community life. Achieving the former is not necessarily
the same as attaining the latter.
Consider a 10-year-old child returning from school
through a designated safety corridor patrolled by police
backed up by an occasional safe house. Arriving home,
with its fortified extra locks, grilles, and perhaps an
alarm system, the child is safe. But community life is like-
ly to be seriously compromised in such an environment.
Safety corridors and other such reactive tactics are not
enough to maximize community safety. The body of
research about policing has demonstrated that proac-
tive strategies are needed as well. The most effective
proactive strategies result from various types of
Policing in the Community
13 Friedman, W., and M. Clark, “Community Policing: What Is theCommunity and What Can It Do?” in Measuring What Matters:Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings,Research Report, ed. R.H. Langworthy, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice and Officeof Community Oriented Policing Services, July 1999 (NCJ170610): 124.
14 Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., and R.E. Worden,Policing Neighborhoods: A Report From Indianapolis, ResearchPreview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, July 1998 (FS 000223): 2.
15 Stephens, D.W., “Measuring What Matters,” in MeasuringWhat Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research InstituteMeetings, Research Report, ed. R.H. Langworthy, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justiceand Office of Community Oriented Policing Services, July 1999(NCJ 170610): 62.
16 Chaiken, M.R., Kids, COPS, and Communities, Issues andPractices, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, June 1998 (NCJ 169599): 42.
17 Friedman, W., and M. Clark, “Community Policing: What Is theCommunity and What Can It Do?” in Measuring What Matters:Proceedings From the Policing Research Institute Meetings, 124.
collaborative police-community interactions. These
interactions flow, in part, from law enforcement’s build-
ing trust among the public, forging police-community
problem-solving projects and other partnerships,
and gaining important insights into the community
and its constituent groups through research.
Building TrustTo promote and maintain police-community coproduc-
tion of safety and public order, the community must
trust the police. To build the public’s trust, the police
must engage the community in a manner seen as fair.
Research shows that when individuals report that
a police officer treated them fairly, their sense of
fairness comes more from the quality of the officer’s
interaction with them than from the outcome of the
interaction. For example, in one study, residents said
that their beliefs and attitudes about the police had
more to do with how the officer treated them than
with the fact that the officer did or did not issue
them a ticket.18
Officer rudeness, aloofness, excessive force, lack of
interaction and integrity, and the like foster distrust
within the community and a sense of being treated
unfairly, often entailing major adverse consequences.19
Officer integrity, another trust-enhancing quality, also is
a research area receiving NIJ funding. The Institute is
sponsoring a variety of integrity-related studies, among
them an examination of the citizen complaint review
process, a review of early warning systems, a demon-
stration of organizational and leadership contributions
to integrity, an exploration of the characteristics of
model sergeants, and development of indicators of
the status of corruption within a police agency.
Understanding CommunityCharacteristicsResearch also can help law enforcement agencies get
closer to their communities by gathering data about a
community’s characteristics, attitudes, and opinions.
One method by which to conduct such studies is sys-
tematic social observation (SSO), which systematizes
field methods for teams of researchers who observe
events as they see and hear them, in contrast to relying
on others to describe or interpret the events.20
Supported by NIJ and COPS, an SSO-based study
(Project on Policing Neighborhoods) focused on how
police and citizens interacted with one another in
different neighborhood environments and the
consequences the interactions had on the quality of
neighborhood life.21 These are among the findings in
one of the two jurisdictions studied:
• Officers serving particular beats tended to rate a
range of neighborhood problems as more severe
than did residents.
• About half the residents reported that the police
were “excellent” or “good” at working with the
public to solve problems.
• Older residents reported feeling less safe than
did younger ones, and members of neighborhood
organizations felt safer than nonmembers.
Another study, based on interviews in Chicago,
concluded that neighborhood context (such as
socioeconomic status of residents and degree of
neighborhood stability) appeared to be the crucial
factor influencing attitudes and beliefs about crime
and law. The researchers suggested that “to design
more effective crime control strategies, policymakers
and agents of the criminal justice system would do well
to consider the role of community social norms.”22
28
Selected Highlights
18 Tyler, Tom, “Why Do Citizens Defer to Legal Authorities? A Comparison of European Americans, African Americans, and Hispanics,” summarized in NIJ Journal, April 1999 (JR 000239): 34.
19 Allegations of excessive force, for instance, have led toriots. Reflecting its ongoing concern about excessive force,NIJ continues to sponsor many use-of-force research studies,including (1) an examination of the types of force used by acounty police department, the frequency of incidents, the fac-tors affecting use of force and the extent of injuries, and thecharacteristics associated with the frequency and type offorce used; (2) a national assessment of early warning sys-tems law enforcement agencies have developed to identifyofficers who receive high rates of citizen complaints and toprovide remedial intervention to correct problem behavior;(3) a comparison of police officers who, because of force- orintegrity-related matters, have been dismissed or compelledto resign to a random sample of colleagues to determine
whether they differ on a variety of individual, organizational,and community characteristics; and (4) development and evaluation of less-than-lethal devices.
20 Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., R.E. Worden, C.DeJong, J.B. Snipes, and W. Terrill, Systematic Observation ofPublic Police: Applying Field Research Methods to Policy Issues,Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, December 1998 (NCJ 172859): vii.
21 Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., and R.E. Worden,Policing Neighborhoods: A Report From Indianapolis, ResearchPreview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,National Institute of Justice, July 1998 (FS 000223): 2.
22 Sampson, R.J., and D.J. Bartusch, Attitudes Toward Crime,Police, and the Law: Individual and Neighborhood Differences,Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, June 1999 (FS 000240): 2.
This same study also found that “collective efficacy”—
the presence of mutual trust among neighbors com-
bined with a willingness to intervene on behalf of the
common good, specifically to supervise children and
maintain public order—not race or poverty, was the
largest single predictor of the overall violent crime
rate. Understanding collective efficacy, according to the
researchers, better equips planners, policymakers, and
community service organizations to work with residents
in addressing community problems.23 (See “Under-
standing Crime in Its Context: The Project on Human
Development in Chicago Neighborhoods,” page 44).
Police-Community Problem SolvingAn example of a police department working out ways
to engage the community in problem solving is the
Chicago Police Department’s Alternative Policing
Strategy (CAPS), which is being evaluated with support
from NIJ and others. Under CAPS, police and residents
collaborate in identifying and prioritizing problems,
devising ways to address them, and helping to marshal
community resources to find solutions.24
Under the police-community approach to coproducing
safety—whether in Chicago or elsewhere25—police
agencies, various components of the community, and a
research partner participate in identifying problems
and putting them in priority order. To define a problem,
the problem solvers collect data, analyze incidents that
may be related to the targeted problem, look beyond
the individual incidents, and begin asking whether the
incidents were triggered by a common underlying cause
or condition that, if resolved, would prevent many of
them from recurring.
To foster greater collaboration with researchers, NIJ,
with support from the COPS Office, has funded many
projects (called locally initiated research partnerships)
through which police and researchers share responsi-
bility for jointly selecting a target problem, collaborat-
ing on a research design, interpreting findings, and
implementing strategies for effecting change. In one
jurisdiction, for example, the police department worked
in concert with researchers from a nearby university to
evaluate the department’s community policing initiative
and unearth factors that facilitated or hindered imple-
mentation.26 ( For further discussion of NIJ’s support
for a major effort in five communities to institutionalize
the data-driven, problem-solving partnership approach,
see “Strategic Approaches to Community Safety,”
page 25.)
Closer Is Better“Policing in the community” increasingly means a
policing style fine-tuned to the community. That is the
message of the quip “Law enforcement is not a game of
cops and robbers in which the public plays the trees.”
And it is the message of this remark by a police chief:
“We must get closer to the people we serve. Closer is
better. Distance is danger.”27
29NIJ Annual Report 1998
For More Information
Chaiken, M.R., Kids, COPS, and Communities, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1998 (NCJ 169599).
Hartnett, S.M., and W.G. Skogan, “Community Policing: Chicago’s Experience,”
NIJ Journal, April 1999, 2–11 (JR 000239).
Langworthy, R.H. Measuring What Matters: Proceedings From the Policing Research
Institute Meetings, Washington, D.C.: Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice and Office of Community Policing Services, July 1999 (NCJ 170610).
Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., and R.E. Worden, Policing Neighborhoods:
A Report From Indianapolis, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, July 1998 (FS 000223).
Mastrofski, S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., R.E. Worden, C. DeJong, J.B. Snipes, and
W. Terrill, Systematic Observation of Public Police: Applying Field Research Methods
to Policy Issues, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, December 1998, vii (NCJ 172859).
Sampson, R.J., and D.J. Bartusch, Attitudes Toward Crime, Police, and the Law:
Individual and Neighborhood Differences, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1999 (FS 000240).
23 Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls, NeighborhoodCollective Efficacy—Does It Help Reduce Violence? ResearchPreview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, April 1998 (FS 000203): 1.
24 See Hartnett, S.M., and W.G. Skogan, “Community Policing:Chicago’s Experience,” NIJ Journal, April 1999 (JR 000239):2–11.
25 In fiscal year 1998, NIJ added 10 research projects to its substantial portfolio of awards related to community-orientedpolicing. See Appendix A, page 59.
26 McEwen, Tom, “NIJ’s Locally Initiated Research Partnershipsin Policing—Factors That Add Up to Success,” NIJ Journal,January 1999 (JR 000238): 3.
27 Couper, D.C., “Seven Seeds for the Field of Policing,” speechdelivered in acceptance of the Police Executive ResearchForum’s leadership award, Washington, D.C., May 4, 1993.
30
Selected Highlights Police, corrections officers, and concerned citizens
have long expressed a need for public safety officers
to have alternatives to using their hands, firearms, or
batons when confronted by violent, uncooperative, or
fleeing suspects. The development of less-than-lethal
(LTL) technologies, including alternatives to high-
speed pursuits, has consistently been among the top
10 priorities of NIJ’s Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Advisory Committee.
NIJ’s LTL program identifies, develops, and evaluates
new or improved devices and technologies that mini-
mize the risk of death and injury to law enforcement
officers, suspects, prisoners, and citizens. The program
also contributes to reducing civil and criminal liability
suits against law enforcement and corrections agencies.
Because no single LTL technology accommodates all
scenarios and fulfills all requirements safely and effec-
tively, NIJ’s program is designed to provide options that
best fit various needs while meeting such criteria as
community acceptance and safety. NIJ does so in the
following ways:
• Funding the development and improvement of
existing LTL technologies.
• Testing and evaluating the safety and effectiveness
of LTL technologies.
• Addressing the legal liabilities and social acceptabil-
ity issues raised by LTL technologies.
• Coordinating with other Federal and international
agencies to leverage LTL research, testing, and
technology development.
• Providing information to law enforcement and
corrections agencies about LTL technologies.
The LTL Program PortfolioIn 1998, NIJ’s LTL portfolio consisted of six major pro-
ject areas. NIJ has funded the development of some of
these technologies as well as provided new and better
information about several existing LTL weapons, such
as pepper spray and shot bags.
Blunt impact projectiles. NIJ is funding research
on three types of projects: (1) modification of a ring
airfoil projectile (RAP), originally developed (but not
fielded) by the U.S. Department of Defense; (2) devel-
opment of test devices and models that predict the
probability of injury from blunt-impact projectiles; and
(3) development of a database on the effectiveness of
projectiles currently in use.
RAP is a rubber ring weighing about 1 ounce and resem-
bling a large napkin ring. Fired from an M-16A1 rifle
equipped with an adaptor that makes the weapon non-
lethal at the muzzle, RAP flies straight ahead at a con-
stant velocity of 185 to 210 feet per second. A launching
device suitable for use by law enforcement and correc-
tions officers is under development, and modifications
are being made to deliver pepper powder. Officers
equipped with RAP will have a weapon that can be
used at standoff range (30 feet—a sufficiently safe
distance) when confronting violent suspects armed
with weapons other than firearms.
Minimizing Risk Through Less-Than-Lethal Technology
Police, corrections officers, and concerned citizens
have long expressed a need for public safety officers
to have alternatives to firearms, batons, or hands
and feet when confronted by violent, uncooperative,
or fleeing suspects. The development of less-than-lethal
technologies, including alternatives to high-
speed pursuits, has consistently been among the
top 10 priorities of NIJ’s Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Advisory Committee.
31NIJ Annual Report 1998
Chemicals. Pepper spray (oleoresin capsicum,
or OC) is the primary chemical LTL weapon used by
law enforcement and corrections agencies for one-on-
one confrontations. NIJ is sponsoring a number of
evaluations of its health effects and operational
effectiveness.
Electrical devices. An electric stun projectile,
developed through NIJ’s Joint Program Steering Group
(a partnership between NIJ and the Defense Advanced
Research Projects Agency to jointly identify and fund
projects), overcomes many of the limitations of cur-
rently available electric shock LTL devices, such as the
stun gun and laser. The projectile is more effective
because it allows the officer standoff distance from a
suspect or prisoner and ensures electrical contact.
Unlike earlier devices, there are no wires extending
between officer and subject, and both electrical
contacts are contained in a single device. The health
effects of the stun projectile are being evaluated,
with technical information from the developer
forming the basis of the assessment.
NIJ compared the effectiveness of stun guns and
pepper spray against hands-on tactics. The study,
conducted in a jail environment, revealed fewer
injuries with pepper spray than with hands-on tactics,
but more injuries occurred with stun guns than with
hands-on tactics.
Nets. Many practitioners and civilians view nets as
particularly safe, noninvasive LTL weapons, preferable
to chemical or electrical devices. One of the nets
whose development was funded by NIJ was recently
made available commercially. Another net design,
unique in that it can be launched by a baton, is under
development.
Light. NIJ is supporting the development of a laser
dazzler to disorient suspects or prisoners and is
funding the safety certification of the device.
Car stopping. With funding from the Department
of Justice’s Office of Community Oriented Policing
Services, NIJ has invested in two projects related to
vehicle-stopping technologies: a Pursuit Management
Task Force and a laboratory performance evaluation,
which also received support from the U.S. Army
Research Laboratory.
The Task Force, consisting of senior law enforcement
officers and other experts, identifies police practices
and the role of technology in high-speed pursuits of
fleeing vehicles. The full range of police pursuit issues
has been explored by the Task Force. Its recommenda-
tions are being used to plan the development and
demonstration of advanced vehicle-stopping devices
and to provide a resource for law enforcement
agencies that develop and implement policies
and procedures related to situations involving
fleeing vehicles.
NIJ and the Army Research Laboratory evaluated a
number of vehicle-stopping concepts and related
hardware, assessing their performance, operational
characteristics, and safety. These laboratory perfor-
mance tests indicated that all devices met or could
be modified to meet established standards for human
safety. The evaluations also indicated that some devices
could disrupt the engine performance of most vehicles
tested. For some devices, more comprehensive testing
is needed to determine effectiveness in operational
scenarios; other devices need further development.
For More Information
Visit the JUSTNET Web site, at http://www.nlectc.org, where specific
projects are described in more detail.
Edwards, Steven M., John Granfield, and Jamie Onnen, Evaluation of Pepper
Spray, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, February 1997 (NCJ 162358).
Kaminski, Robert, Steven M. Edwards, and James W. Johnson, “Assessing
the Incapacitative Effects of Pepper Spray During Resistive Encounters
With the Police,” Policing 22 (1) (1999):7–29.
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center,
Pursuit Management Task Force Report, Rockville, Maryland:
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center,
September 1998 (NCJ 172200).
32
Selected Highlights
Mapping Out Crime
The use of computer-generated maps showing precise
details about a neighborhood is a well-established
practice in the private sector when a developer, for
example, makes a decision about the location of a new
business or mixed-use development. But only in the
last few years has mapping become more widely used
by public safety agencies.28
Those who use geographic information systems (GIS)
technology are finding that they can use GIS not only to
pinpoint the locations of crime by type, but also to add
multiple layers of information—such as the location
of schools, public transportation routes, residence
of convicted sex offenders, and other neighborhood
characteristics—so they can place crime in its context
within the neighborhood and uncover the more
subtle dynamics of crime and victimization patterns.
The Charlotte-Mecklenburg (North Carolina) Police
Department, for example, is integrating multiple
sources of information using data collected by the
office of public works, the tax assessor, and other
city and county agencies.
Mapping, with its rich data content and possibilities
for viewing multiple scenarios, gives police greater
capability to analyze criminal events more precisely,
identify emerging high-crime areas (hot spots),
develop solutions, and deploy resources.
NIJ Participates in a Vice Presidential Task ForceIn 1998, NIJ participated in Vice President Gore’s Task
Force on Crime Mapping and Data-Driven Management,
which aims to expand the use of crime mapping and
data-driven management to improve law enforcement.
Through the Task Force subcommittees, NIJ is working
with State and local agencies to help them upgrade
their technology and equipment and learn more about
the various uses of crime mapping, especially with
regard to integrating mapping with real-time data that
supports community policing and crime prevention.
In establishing the Task Force, Vice President Gore
cited the power of technology to reduce crime by
employing up-to-the-minute mapping, tracking, and
strategic analysis of crime data combined with local
accountability for results.
Training and Assistance for Crime MappingTo realize the technology’s full potential, law enforce-
ment agencies say they need training and technical
assistance on the use of crime mapping and GIS. This is
one finding from a 1998 national survey on the extent to
which law enforcement agencies use analytic mapping.
Published in The Use of Computerized Crime Mapping
Taking Steps to Prevent Crime
Those who use geographic information systems
technology are finding that they can use
it not only to pinpoint the locations of crime
by type, but also to add multiple layers of
information—such as the location of schools,
public transportation routes, residence of
convicted sex offenders, and other neighborhood
characteristics—so they can place crime
in its context within the neighborhood and
uncover the more subtle dynamics of crime
and victimization patterns.
28 An NIJ survey found that 36 percent of law enforcementagencies with 100 or more sworn officers are using someform of crime mapping. The figure for smaller agencies is 3 percent. Mamalian, Cynthia A., and Nancy G. LaVigne, TheUse of Computerized Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement:Survey Results, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,January 1999 (FS 000237).
by Law Enforcement: Survey Results, the researchers’
findings will help NIJ to develop a strategic plan that
will respond best to law enforcement needs related to
GIS hardware, software, training, technical assistance,
other resources, and dissemination techniques.
NIJ’s Crime Mapping Research Center (CMRC), estab-
lished in 1997, serves as a central source of information
about mapping research. NIJ also makes training and
practical application assistance available through NIJ’s
National Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Center–Rocky Mountain Region in Denver. (See page
40 for more information about the National Law
Enforcement and Corrections Technology Center.)
In collaboration with police officers, crime analysts, and
researchers, NIJ has developed a number of courses to
train law enforcement personnel in using crime map-
ping. The courses range from an introductory overview
to specific uses and intermediate-level analysis.
During 1998, NIJ published jointly with the Police
Executive Research Forum a volume to answer the
question: “How do police agencies use crime map-
ping?” Crime Mapping Case Studies: Successes in the
Field highlights successful efforts across the country
that used mapping to identify suspects and prevent or
reduce crime, from auto theft in Newark, New Jersey, to
burglary in Shreveport, Louisiana, and murder in
Lowell, Massachusetts.
In the coming years, NIJ plans to continue reaching
out to community safety agencies and providing assis-
tance and technical expertise with mapping as a tool
that can promote collaborative problem solving.
33NIJ Annual Report 1998
Crime Mapping Research Awards
NIJ’s Crime Mapping Research Center awarded nine major grants for crime mapping research in 1998:
• Assistance in Crime Mapping and Analytic Technologies for Enhancing Law Enforcement and Prosecution
Coordination, Hunter College of the City University of New York.
• Combining Police and Probation Research To Reduce Burglary: Testing a Crime-Analysis Problem-Solving
Approach, Arizona State University.
• Crime Hot-Spot Forecasting: Modeling and Comparative Evaluation, Carnegie Mellon University.
• Detection and Prediction of Geographical Changes in Crime Rates, State University of New York at Buffalo.
• A Geographic Information System Analysis of the Relationship Between Public Order and More Serious Crimes,
University of Texas at Austin.
• Identification, Development, and Implementation of Innovative Crime Mapping Techniques, Hunter College
of the City University of New York.
• Predictive Models for Law Enforcement, University of Virginia.
• The Social and Economic Impact of Sentencing Practices and Incarceration on Families and Neighborhoods,
Yale University.
• Variation in Community Policing Activities Across Neighborhoods, University of Cincinnati.
For More Information
Visit NIJ’s Crime Mapping Research Center at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/cmrc,
or call the Center at 202–514–3431.
To subscribe to the listserv (Crimemap), send an Internet message to
[email protected]. Leave the subject line blank and in the body
of the message type: subscribe crimemap,<Your Name>.
For assistance from NLECTC—Rocky Mountain Region, visit the JUSTNET
Web site at http://www.nlectc.org. Click on the “Rocky Mountain” center. Or
contact the director of Rocky Mountain’s Crime Mapping and Analysis Program,
Noah Fritz, at 1–800–416–8086, or NIJ Program Manager James Williams at
202–305–9078.
LaVigne, Nancy G., and Julie Wartell, Crime Mapping Case Studies: Success in
the Field, Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum, 1998 (PERF
product #834).
Mamalian, Cynthia A., and Nancy G. LaVigne, The Use of Computerized
Crime Mapping by Law Enforcement: Survey Results, Research Preview,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
January 1999 (FS 000237).
34
Selected Highlights The Violence Against Women and Family Violence
(VAW/FV) Research and Evaluation program was
launched in 1996 in direct response to the Violent
Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act of 1994
(Crime Act).
Over the past year, NIJ continued its ambitious
research agenda in collaboration with many other
Federal agencies, committing nearly $10 million during
1998 to determine the nature and scope of violence
against women and to address gaps in family violence
programs, policies, and practices.
NIJ’s VAW/FV program seeks to enhance the
effectiveness of the criminal justice system’s response
to this type of violence and to improve the safety of
women and their families. It achieves its goals through
a multidisciplinary, collaborative research portfolio
that is examining the causes and consequences of
violence against women and family violence, evaluating
prevention and intervention initiatives, and supporting
field research that can be used to improve practice
and formulate policy.
The initiative addresses the following program
objectives:
• Describe the extent of violence against women
and family violence.
• Identify the reasons why violent behavior against
women and within the family occurs and the factors
required to end this type of violence.
• Assess the effectiveness of prevention and
intervention programs.
• Provide research results to justice system
practitioners, victim service providers, and
policymakers.
• Develop multidisciplinary partnerships to
broaden research efforts.
Collaboration Enhances Ambitious Research ProgramThe foundation of NIJ’s research on violence
against women and family violence is built on a variety
of intra- and interagency partnerships. Each partner
enhances the depth and breadth of the program.
NIJ’s VAW/FV infrastructure is comprised of four
components:
• The NIJ Violence Against Women Research and
Evaluation Agenda.
• The NIJ/Violence Against Women Office Joint
Program.
• The NIJ/Centers for Disease Control and Prevention
Collaboration.
• The Interagency Consortium on Violence Against
Women.
NIJ’s Violence Against Women Research
and Evaluation Agenda. NIJ has funded projects
on such issues as domestic violence/intimate partner
violence, sexual assault, and stalking. These studies
fall under four major program areas: practitioner-
researcher collaborations; evaluation of policies
and programs, including experimental research
designs; longitudinal studies of women’s experience
with violence; and basic research.
Partnerships Promote the Safety of Women and Families
The Violence Against Women and Family Violence
Research and Evaluation program achieves its
goals through a multidisciplinary, collaborative
research portfolio that is examining the causes
and consequences of violence against women
and family violence, evaluating prevention and
intervention initiatives, and supporting field
research that can be used to improve practice
and formulate policy.
NIJ and VAWO Joint Program. Together, NIJ
and the Office of Justice Program’s Violence Against
Women Office (VAWO) are evaluating the effectiveness
of four programs, plus the largest VAWO program,
STOP (Services Training Officers Prosecutors)
Violence Against Women grants program. A majority
of STOP grants provide direct services to victims, with
emphasis on providing assistance to underserved
victims and building community capacity to combat
violence against women. Nearly a quarter of the
projects provide training for law enforcement and
prosecution. Many grantees are developing policies
and protocols or supporting specialized units within
law enforcement or prosecution agencies.
NIJ and CDC Collaboration. NIJ and the Centers
for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) are collabo-
rating on a 5-year effort to examine violence against
women—why it occurs, how to prevent it, and how to
increase the effectiveness of legal and health care
interventions. The partners support joint publications,
projects, conferences, meetings, and panels at profes-
sional gatherings. A major component of the NIJ/CDC
collaboration is the National Violence Against Women
Survey, which is described on pages 7–8.
NIJ and CDC expanded their joint research efforts in
1998 with almost $1 million in funding for two new pro-
jects: a longitudinal examination of the effects of welfare
system changes on domestic abuse among low-income
minority women, and a study of partner violence among
young, at-risk Mexican-American females to help develop
culturally responsive, effective prevention programs.
Interagency Consortium. In 1996, nine Federal
agencies formed a consortium to examine violence
against women using a multidisciplinary approach.
The consortium brings together researchers from the
mental health, public health and prevention, alcohol
and drug abuse, and child development fields. Twelve
research projects have been funded on a range of
topics, including abuse of children and the elderly,
partner violence, sexual violence, and perpetrators and
victims of multiple episodes of family violence. Findings
from the 12 projects are expected in 1999 and 2000.
35NIJ Annual Report 1998
Members of the Interagency Consortium on Violence Against Women
• Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.
• National Institute on Aging.
• National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and
Alcoholism.
• National Institute on Drug Abuse.
• National Institute of Justice.
• National Institute of Mental Health.
• Office of Behavioral and Social Science Research
(at the National Institutes of Health).
• Office of Child Abuse and Neglect.
• Office of Research on Women’s Health (at the
National Institutes of Health).
For More Information
Visit NIJ’s Violence Against Women and Family Violence Program Web site at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/vawprog/welcome.html.
Visit CDC’s National Center for Injury Prevention and Control Web site at
http://www.cdc.gov/ncipc/dvp/fivpt.
Burt, M.R., L.C. Newmark, L.K. Jacobs, and A.V. Harrell, Evaluation of the STOP
Formula Grants to Combat Violence Against Women, Washington, D.C.: Urban
Institute, July 1998. To access this report on the Urban Institute’s Web page, go
to www.urban.org, then click on “Researchers by Name,” and then on “Burt.”
Chalk, R., and P. King, eds., Violence in Families: Assessing Prevention and
Treatment Programs, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1998.
Crowell, N.A., and A.W. Burgess, eds., Understanding Violence Against
Women, Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press, 1996.
Healey, K., C. Smith, and C. O’Sullivan, Batterer Intervention: Program
Approaches and Criminal Justice Strategies, Issues and Practices,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
February 1998 (NCJ 168638).
Legal Interventions in Family Violence: Research Findings and Policy
Implications, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: American Bar Association
and U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998
(NCJ 171666).
Tjaden, P., and N. Thoennes, Prevalence, Incidence, and Consequences of
Violence Against Women: Findings From the National Violence Against Women
Survey, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, November 1998 (NCJ 172837).
36
Selected Highlights
Firearms were the cause of 34,000 deaths in 1996.29
In addition, firearms killed 688 law enforcement
officers (92 percent of those killed in the line of duty)
from 1988 through 1997. Ten percent (or 62) of these
officers were slain with their own firearm.30
NIJ is supporting research and development activities
that will lead to safer guns and better ways to detect
concealed weapons.
Developing Smart Guns NIJ’s smart gun project supports the development
and refinement of a firearm that will only fire for a
recognized user.
In 1994, NIJ sponsored research to determine the
viability of a smart gun that would be effective enough
for law enforcement officers to use. In 1995, Colt
Manufacturing developed the first working smart
gun prototype using radio frequency identification
technology. When activated, Colt Manufacturing’s
smart gun emits a radio signal, which is received
by a small transponder worn by the authorized user.
The transponder returns a coded radio signal to the
firearm. When the weapon hears the signal, the trigger
is unlocked and the weapon can be fired.
At a meeting convened in early 1998, NIJ demonstrated
the product and solicited ideas for improvements from
law enforcement and corrections officials. NIJ is sup-
porting Colt Manufacturing’s efforts to build Prototype
II, which will contain more advanced features, including
a smaller receiver that can fit on the back of a watch, in
a bracelet, or be made a permanent part of a uniform.
The rest of the components will be inserted in the
grip of the gun.
Other research, conducted by Sandia National
Laboratories, suggests several existing technologies
that also may be suitable for smart gun application,
including touch memory, biometric technologies,
and voice recognition.
In addition to making a police weapon safer, the smart
gun concept, once fully developed and tested, has
the potential to greatly improve safety for private
owners by reducing the potential for accidental shoot-
ing and the opportunity for a suspect to turn a home-
owner’s firearm against the occupant.
Detecting Concealed WeaponsConcealed weapons in the hands of criminals are
serious threats to the safety of the public and to law
enforcement officials. Recognizing the severity of the
problem, President Clinton directed the Department
of Justice to address it. In response, NIJ initiated a
technology program to provide better tools to detect
weapons.
The Department of Justice/Department of Defense
Joint Program Steering Group manages the concealed
weapons detection program for NIJ, in collaboration
with the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory in Rome,
New York, and the National Law Enforcement and
Corrections Technology Center-Northeast Region.
NIJ and the partner agencies are developing technolo-
gies to unobtrusively detect metallic and nonmetallic
concealed weapons using imagery-capable and multiple
technology-based systems. NIJ also monitors other
promising technology developments, including low-
power x-rays that penetrate clothing but do not pene-
trate the body. Instead, the device reflects x-rays back
from the skin, subjecting individuals to the equivalent
of about 5 minutes of exposure to the sun at sea level.
Computer software creates a composite image of the
person from the reflected x-rays. The color and shape
of objects in the image enable everyday items, like keys,
to be distinguished from suspicious items.
Enhancing Public Safety by Improving and Detecting Weapons
29 Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, National VitalStatistics Report, 47(9) (November 10, 1998): 67.
30 Uniform Crime Reports, “Law Enforcement Officers Killed,1997,” Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, FederalBureau of Investigation, pp. 4, 15.
37NIJ Annual Report 1998
The major advantage of this device over current
walk-through portals, like those found at airports
and courthouses, is that it can detect weapons with
no metal content. The device was successfully demon-
strated in a Federal courthouse in Los Angeles and
at a State correctional facility in North Carolina in
1997 and at the U.S. Capitol in April 1998.
The second product is a walk-through portal developed
by the Idaho National Engineering and Environmental
Laboratory of Idaho Falls, Idaho. This device uses flux-
gate magnetometers to detect changes in the earth’s
magnetic field caused by the magnetic material in
weapons carried by individuals walking through it.
It can detect weapons with even a small ferrous
content. Another advantage it holds over current
portals, besides improved sensitivity, is that it is
not as likely to issue an alert for innocuous objects
like keys, which usually do not contain ferrous material.
This technology is almost ready for commercialization.
A prototype is in operation in the Bannock County,
Idaho, courthouse.
In addition to portal devices, NIJ has a number of hand-
held weapons detectors in development. These devices
are intended to allow law enforcement officials to scan
individuals for illicit weapons at a safe distance. NIJ is
pursuing multiple technical approaches to increase the
chance of producing one or more devices that are high-
ly effective. Two of these approaches use different
types of radar and a third uses ultrasound. Each
approach has different advantages and limitations.
The ultrasound device is the least expensive and the
most readily developed. On the other hand, ultrasound
does not penetrate clothing as well as radar. The ultra-
sound device was demonstrated in 1998 for the
California Border Alliance Group, where it was well
received. Three prototypes of this device were
delivered to the U.S. Air Force Research Laboratory’s
Rome research site for evaluation. If the prototypes
perform as expected, NIJ plans to demonstrate them
with law enforcement agencies.
Also in development are two portable devices used for
scanning groups of individuals for illicit weapons. One
uses radar; the other is a hybrid system using both
radar and infrared (heat-detecting) sensors. Both
appear promising.
NIJ is developing a weapons detector that will mount
to the front of patrol cars. It is intended to allow law
enforcement officials to screen individuals standing 10
to 15 feet away for concealed weapons made of metal,
like handguns and knives, from inside a patrol car.
Finally, NIJ is funding an effort to develop a device for
noninvasive body cavity screening using magnetic
resonance imaging, or MRI, a technology perhaps
best known for its use in medicine.
Although NIJ’s weapons technology and detection
capability programs have only existed for 4 years, they
have been remarkably successful in their endeavors to
develop promising technologies.
For More Information
Visit the Web site of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Centers at http://www.nlectc.org.
“Making Guns Smart: The Next Step,” TechBeat, Winter 1999: 3.
In addition to making a police weapon safer,
the smart gun concept, once fully developed
and tested, has the potential to greatly improve
safety for private owners by reducing the
potential for accidental shooting and the
opportunity for a suspect to turn a homeowner’s
firearm against the occupant.
38
Selected Highlights
Partnerships—MultiplyingPerspectives and Resources
Recognizing that no single organization or field of
study has the answer to reducing and preventing crime,
NIJ joins with other government agencies, as well as
with professional groups and other organizations,
to work on issues collaboratively. The Institute also
encourages the partnership approach at the local level.
Partnerships bring together multiple perspectives,
skills, experiences, and types of knowledge, increasing
the chances of devising effective solutions and avoiding
duplication of effort. They also help to ensure the
involvement of all stakeholders.
The RationalePartnerships make sense for criminal justice because
many issues that touch the field of criminal justice also
affect other disciplines. Substance abuse, perceived as
both a public health and criminal justice problem, is
perhaps the best example. Health concerns also inter-
sect with criminal justice concerns in corrections.
This conjuncture prompted NIJ’s partnership with the
Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC),
which is conducting surveys on the prevalence of
HIV/AIDS and other infectious diseases in prisons.
Violence against women, also a concern of both health
and criminal justice professionals, prompted a partner-
ship between NIJ and CDC aimed at understanding the
extent of the problem and finding effective responses.
In recent years, Congress has made it possible for
partnerships among government agencies to flourish.
Following passage of the 1994 Crime Act, for example,
NIJ formed partnerships with the offices created to
administer the Act to evaluate the innovative programs
established at the State and local levels. Partnerships
have greatly expanded NIJ’s research capacity. Funds
transferred to NIJ from other government agencies
have more than doubled since 1995.31
Partnerships make strategic sense when criminal
justice agencies at different levels of government
come together in a single community to focus their
collective skills on a common problem. At several sites
nationwide, the Strategic Approaches to Community
Safety Initiative (SACSI) is targeting problems like
gang violence through a team approach that combines
the efforts of U.S. attorneys, researchers, and local
agencies and organizations to build the necessary
infrastructure of research and technology for precise
definition of problems and promising countermea-
sures. (See “Strategic Approaches to Community
Safety,” page 25.)
Researchers and Practitioners—Equal Partners SACSI is only the most recent way in which NIJ has
encouraged collaboration. Since 1995, the Institute
has been promoting a new way for researchers to work
together with criminal justice practitioners in law
enforcement and other fields. In the locally initiated
research partnerships program, the partners work as
equals on pressing local problems. The collaborative
approach is viewed by NIJ as such a valuable tool that it
was selected as the theme of the 1998 criminal justice
research and evaluation conference.
Police departments have long worked with researchers,
but the traditional approach has been for the
researcher to identify the topic of study and for the
agency to provide access to data and staff. NIJ’s locally
Finding New Ways of Working Together
31 In 1995, transfers of funds from other agencies amountedto $11.1 million; by 1998 that figure had risen to $26.3 million.
Partnerships bring together multiple
perspectives, skills, experiences, and
types of knowledge, increasing the chances
of devising effective solutions and avoiding
duplication of effort.
initiated research partnerships are a departure from
that model in that the law enforcement agency and
the researchers together identify the problem to be
studied and work side by side to develop strategies to
deal with the problem. The two collaborate on the
research design and its implementation and on the
interpretation of study findings. In the long term,
NIJ anticipates that the partnerships will extend
beyond the life of the initial project to become
ongoing collaborations that build practitioners’
research capacity.
The 41 researcher-practitioner partnerships in policing
are the subject of a national evaluation of both process
and impact, with the final report expected early in the
year 2000. From their beginnings in policing, the part-
nerships have been extended to other areas, including
research on inmate substance abuse, crime in
public housing, and violence against women (see
“Partnerships Promote the Safety of Women and
Families,” page 34.)
Drug Treatment for Prisoners—Partnerships Extended Because large proportions of arrestees are substance
abusers, treatment offered in the correctional setting
holds the potential for reducing drug use as well as
recidivism. The Residential Substance Abuse Treatment
(RSAT) program, authorized under the 1994 Crime Act,
offers funds to the States to develop such programs
in prisons and jails. States are encouraged to adopt
comprehensive approaches that include relapse
prevention and aftercare. With support from the
Corrections Program Office, NIJ is evaluating
selected RSAT programs.
The evaluations are patterned on the researcher-
practitioner model. Researchers based in local univer-
sities or other research institutions are encouraged
to collaborate with the State agency whose program is
being assessed. Again, the immediate aim is to measure
program effectiveness, while the long-term goal is to
build the research capacity of the agency. A national-
level evaluation, covering programs in all States that
have RSAT programs, is also under way. In 1998, NIJ
awarded many additional evaluation grants.
Joining Forces for Safer Public Housing Some public housing communities across America
experience disproportionately high levels of crime.
NIJ has established a partnership with the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(HUD) to help local public housing authorities
(PHA’s) reduce crime.
In one partnership effort, NIJ is developing measurable
indicators of the impact of HUD’s Public Housing Drug
Elimination Program (PHDEP) so that public housing
officials and residents will have empirically based evi-
dence for deciding whether a program supported by
PHDEP should be continued, modified, or discontinued
and whether it can or should be replicated.
Another NIJ-HUD partnership effort brings together
researchers, local PHA’s, residents, and law enforce-
ment officials. As with all research partnerships, NIJ
sees this effort as helping to develop and sustain local
research capacity. Researchers work with the PHA’s
and residents to design technically sound strategies
for evaluating the impact of a program, with a built-in
feedback loop that allows for midcourse correction.
Alternatively, the partnership can first identify prob-
lems related to drug abuse and trafficking and other
crime, then design and implement solutions and evalu-
ate their impact. For the researchers, the projects
afford the opportunity to apply their knowledge in a
real-world setting where it can make a difference.
Eight researcher-practitioner partnerships are now
under way in Calexico, California; Jonesboro, Arkansas;
Omaha, Nebraska; Nashville, Tennessee; New Haven,
Connecticut; Philadelphia, Pennsylvania; Raleigh, North
Carolina; and Salt Lake City, Utah.
39NIJ Annual Report 1998
For More Information
McEwen, Tom, “NIJ’s Locally Initiated Research Partnerships in Policing: Factors
That Add Up to Success,” NIJ Journal (January 1999): 2–10 (JR 000238).
Viewing Crime and Justice From a Collaborative Perspective: Plenary Papers
of the 1998 Conference on Criminal Justice Research and Evaluation, Research
Forum, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of
Justice, July 1999 (NCJ 176979).
40
Selected Highlights A paramount concern in developing new equipment and
technology is uncovering and understanding the needs
of those who will use it. Equally important is making
sure a product is the best tool for the job and has
received the imprimatur of the experts. Lives are on
the line every day—law enforcement officers, correc-
tions personnel, and citizens. That reality is the driving
force behind NIJ’s creation of an array of measures to
make sure these issues are fully addressed.
Identifying the Needs of the FieldInput from the people who work on the front lines
comes to NIJ via a group of practitioners organized
as the Law Enforcement and Corrections Technology
Advisory Council (LECTAC). In essence, LECTAC
members are the voice of State and local practitioners
who will be the end users of NIJ-developed products,
services, standards, guidelines, and publications.
They work through the National Law Enforcement
and Corrections Technology Centers (NLECTC),
NIJ’s one-stop technology education, assessment, and
referral source for law enforcement and corrections
agencies. LECTAC pinpoints needs and NIJ passes
the information on to researchers, scientists, and
engineers. Major imperatives are affordability, safety,
effectiveness, and limited liability.
A Smart Gun (a gun that can be fired only by recognized
users); through-the-wall surveillance systems (which
can detect movement behind concrete walls); and
advanced body armor inserts (lighter than the vests
now used, they also protect against assault rifles) are
among the products being developed on the basis of
LECTAC recommendations.
Deciding on PrioritiesPromising technologies and related policy issues are
reviewed for NIJ by experts from the private sector
and various Federal agencies. These knowledgeable
representatives constitute the Technology and Policy
Assessment Panel, whose primary function is present-
ing different perspectives on the best approaches to
getting new technologies into practitioners’ hands in
both the short and long term. Legal, social, and other
problems that might arise in developing a specific
product are examined in depth. One of the Panel’s
subcommittees is dedicated to investigating liability, a
recurring issue for criminal justice agencies.
It was the Panel that recognized the potential to
adapt for law enforcement use some of the products
developed for the military; the result has been a
vigorous Justice-Defense Department collaboration
on a number of products, including the ring airfoil
projectile, a nonlethal deterrent device initially devel-
oped for use by the National Guard; a laser dazzler,
which uses laser light to temporarily immobilize sus-
pects; and an explosives diagnostic system that detects
bombs and similar devices.
Refining and StandardizingProceduresThe work of law enforcement and corrections agencies
encompasses a vast array of issues. These agencies
operate best when they have access to the most
advanced techniques and proven practices. Through a
process involving technical working groups (TWG’s),
each dedicated to a specific discipline or practice, NIJ
helps to identify the best techniques and practices,
develop standardized procedures, and draw on
Consulting the Experts in Science and Technology
A paramount concern in developing new
equipment and technology is uncovering
and understanding the needs of
those who will use it.
41NIJ Annual Report 1998
community opinion in the shaping of its long-range
policies. The goal of each TWG is to produce
objective, comprehensive, verifiable guidelines
and procedures.
TWG’s are established in response to community-
articulated issues and in response to requests
from the criminal justice community. A key component
is a resource pool of organizations and experts in the
field for which a TWG has been established. The guide-
lines for death investigations, recently published by
NIJ, were developed through the work of a TWG.32
In recent months, NIJ has set up TWG’s to develop
procedures for investigating bomb and explosive
evidence, crime scenes, and arson; using eyewitness
evidence; and responding to electronic crime. The
guidelines for each procedure will be developed by
surveying representatives of all relevant disciplines
and arriving at a consensus that reflects their diverse
perspectives.
Coordinating the Work of Federal AgenciesThe Justice Department is only one of several Federal
agencies that work on research and technology devel-
opment that could be useful in law enforcement and
corrections. For example, advances in communications
and transportation could be adopted or adapted for
police use. To avoid costly duplication, the many
Federal agencies that conduct these types of activities
now share information through the Technology Policy
Council (TPC).33
One way TPC maximizes the value of investments
in research and development is by tracking Federal
initiatives under way in all participating agencies.
As the executive agent for TPC, NIJ maintains
a list of initiatives, which currently contains more than
150 projects at some stage of development.
Community Acceptance—An Essential ComponentThe technology tools developed under NIJ sponsorship
must not only meet the tests of scientific soundness,
cost-effectiveness, and responsiveness to practitioner
needs, they also must be socially acceptable. That is,
they must reflect community perceptions of appropri-
ate and valid use.
Social acceptability is particularly important when
unfamiliar technologies, such as new methods of non-
lethal incapacitation, are proposed. Ensuring that the
community has the opportunity to become familiar with
proposed tools and technologies is the work of the
Community Acceptance Panel, through which NIJ asks
representatives with highly differing points of view to
express their views and concerns. A typical panel, for
example, might be composed of representatives from
the American Civil Liberties Union, Hand-Gun Control,
the National Rifle Association, the National Association
for the Advancement of Colored People, neighborhood
public housing associations, and crime watch groups.
New and proposed technologies are presented to the
panel by experts and criminal justice practitioners. NIJ
uses the Panel’s reactions to improve the way the tech-
nology programs are presented to the public and, if
necessary, to modify the programs or specific products.
The Community Acceptance Panel is not the only way
NIJ receives public input about a new technology, but it
is the most structured way, and every effort is made to
achieve a balanced public perspective.
For More Information
Visit the Web site of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center at http://www.nlectc.org.
Visit the Web site of the National Institute of Justice, Office of Science
and Technology at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/sciencetech.
32 National Guidelines for Death Investigation, ResearchReport, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, December 1997 (NCJ 167568).
33 Initially, the Attorney General requested that the lawenforcement and corrections components of the JusticeDepartment that conduct research and development meetregularly to share information about their programs.Subsequently, other Federal agencies joined TPC, creating an interagency council with representatives from severaldepartments.
42
Selected Highlights Criminal justice agencies face the same imperative
for ongoing technological advancement as do other
organizations. For that reason, NIJ has spearheaded
technology-related research and development to
produce life-saving equipment and devices that
promise to prevent crime and improve criminal
justice. NIJ also develops performance standards
for equipment, tests equipment against them, and
issues guidelines for using the equipment. In 1998,
standards and guidelines were developed in several
areas, and a number of training and technical assis-
tance initiatives were undertaken to familiarize
prospective users with the new technologies.
Measuring Performance, Issuing Standards In law enforcement and corrections, where lives are
on the line every day, equipment needs to meet rigor-
ous and exacting standards for safety, dependability,
and effectiveness. For more than 25 years, NIJ has
developed standards for commercial equipment and
tested it to help officials make informed decisions
when purchasing such items as protective clothing,
vehicles, weapons, and communications systems.
In 1998, NIJ released standards for several types of
equipment, among them:
• Antennas used by law enforcement in radio
communication. The revised standard covers
newer antennas, at base stations or other fixed
sites, that use new frequency bands.
• Pistols used by law enforcement officers.
Performance requirements were set for new
weapon designs and calibers, and testing proce-
dures were revised.
Guidance for Technology Users Guidelines, as distinct from standards, present
information in nontechnical terms and reach a wide
audience. For example, NIJ developed guidelines for
death investigations in conjunction with the Bureau
of Justice Assistance and the Centers for Disease
Control and Prevention; the booklet has been one
of NIJ’s most frequently requested publications.
Other guidelines issued in 1998 include:
• Batteries used by law enforcement. Vehicles,
flashlights, mobile radios, laptop computers, and
cell phones all require batteries. The guidelines
cover performance advantages and disadvantages,
cost-effectiveness, and handling and maintenance.
• Designing and building forensics
laboratories. Developed with the American
Society of Crime Laboratory Directors, the guide-
lines are a resource for building or refurbishing a
laboratory. Safety, security, and adaptability to
changing technologies were the main considera-
tions in developing the guidelines.
Demonstrating Safe, Effective Riot Control in PrisonsA mock prison riot held at the West Virginia peniten-
tiary showcased emerging technologies useful for
rapid, safe response. Some 300 observers watched
several scenarios set up to depict real-life riot situa-
tions. They included a stabbing and hostage-taking
during a basketball game, an uprising in the prison
chapel, cellblock takeovers, and high-speed escapes
by boat and automobile.
The basketball game scenario featured a range of
equipment used for restraint and communication. An
electronic fence foiled an attempted escape, and other
inmates were prevented from fleeing when their vehi-
cle was disabled by a road spike. During the simulated
hostage negotiations, a voice translator was used to talk
with inmates who could not speak English. Participants
used a biometric device to verify the identities of staff
and inmates and an ion tracker to detect explosives in
the facility.
Other scenarios demonstrated the capabilities of night-
vision devices, security systems, officer protection
products, drug detection systems, and location/tracking
systems. Telemedicine technology was used to respond
to staged injuries.
Guiding the User of State-of-the-Art Technology
Saving Resources ThroughTechnology-Based TrainingUsing advanced technologies as training tools can be
a relatively low-cost alternative or supplement to con-
ventional classroom learning. NIJ is developing several
training tools in a number of areas of interest to law
enforcement and corrections and has created an
Internet-based database, the Law Enforcement
Instructional Technology Information System, to catalog
training curricula that use advanced technologies.
Handling bomb threats. Bomb threats are among
the most frightening and dangerous situations public
safety officers face. Under NIJ sponsorship, the
University of Houston is developing an interactive
multimedia package that trains first responders to
conduct bomb threat assessments that cover evaluating
the situation, searching, and evacuating.
Because the Bomb Threat Training Simulator (BTTS)
is in CD-ROM format, it requires only a multimedia-
equipped computer and enables trainees to learn at
their own pace, saving travel time, class time, and
money. An evaluation of the initial version of BTTS
showed it to be more effective than conventional
bomb threat response training. On the basis of reviews
by experts, NIJ provided additional funds to develop
BTTS for actual field use, with rollout scheduled for
mid-2000.
Analyzing bombs. Dealing with explosive devices
requires an understanding of how they are made and
what they are made of. With the Department of Defense
and the FBI, NIJ is piloting and evaluating a better way
for law enforcement to diagnose these devices. One
tool, the RTR-3, is a computer-based, portable x-ray
system that permits real-time diagnosis or enables
the x-ray images of the devices to be transmitted
electronically for examination. The RTR-3 is being
piloted in 28 State and local agencies nationwide.
Training bomb disposal experts. To aid in
the highly dangerous and delicate process of disman-
tling bombs, NIJ, along with the FBI, is developing a
computer-based, interactive tool for training bomb dis-
posal technicians. Packaged as a CD-ROM, it is intended
as a refresher course, supplementing basic training.
Preparing weapons team responses. Rescuing
hostages, using force, clearing rooms and buildings,
and dealing with threats to school security are simulat-
ed by an interactive technology, the Weapons Team
Engagement Trainer (WTET). Trainees equipped with
a range of simulated weapons respond to various
scenarios that are projected on large screens and can
be replayed for evaluation purposes. Originally devel-
oped for the Navy, WTET was commercialized for law
enforcement use and has been installed in the Los
Angeles County Sheriff’s Department.
Briefing the Field: NIJ’s Technology Institutes
Transferring technology to law enforcement and
corrections is the aim of the Technology Institutes
NIJ has held to bring State and local agency officials up
to speed on recent developments applicable to their
fields. In two sessions held in 1998, one for law
enforcement and another for corrections, the range of
affordable, effective technologies currently available or
in the pipeline was showcased.
At each weeklong Institute, some 24 officials selected
from a pool of applicants were briefed on technologies
being developed by NIJ and other Federal agencies.
The Institutes also served as forums where participants
discussed the specific challenges they face and
explored possible solutions. NIJ staff were on hand
to direct them to further information.
43NIJ Annual Report 1998
For More Information
Visit the Law Enforcement Instructional Technology Information System
Web site at http://www.leitis.com, for information about training curricula.
Visit the Web site of the National Law Enforcement and Corrections
Technology Center (NLECTC) at http://www.nlectc.org, for information about
new products and technologies for law enforcement and corrections. Or con-
tact NLECTC by phone (800–248–2742) or e-mail ([email protected]).
Forensic Laboratories: Handbook for Facility Planning, Design, Construction,
and Moving, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
National Institute of Justice, April 1998 (NCJ 168106).
New Technology Batteries Guide, NIJ Guide 200–98, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998.
NIJ Standard 0112.03, Autoloading Pistols for Police Officers, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1998.
NIJ Standard 0204.02, Fixed and Base Station Antennas, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, June 1998.
44
Selected Highlights
Understanding Crime in Its Context:The Project on Human Developmentin Chicago Neighborhoods
What makes some communities relatively safe
and lawful while others experience high rates of
crime, violence, and substance abuse? How do
individual personalities, family relationships, school
environments, and type of community interact to
contribute to delinquency and criminal behavior?
What characteristics—of communities, families, and
individuals—enable citizens to lead crimefree lives
even in high-risk neighborhoods? Using Chicago as a
laboratory, researchers are attempting to answer
such questions about the complex relationships
among community, crime, delinquency, family,
and individual development.
The Project on Human Development in Chicago
Neighborhoods brings together experts from many
disciplines to examine crime in the context of commu-
nity. It combines two studies into a single integrated
research effort. The first is an intensive examination
of the social, economic, organizational, political, and
cultural structure of Chicago’s neighborhoods and the
changes that take place in them over time. The second
is a series of longitudinal studies assessing the person-
al characteristics and changing circumstances of a
sample of children and adolescents. Researchers
have conducted surveys among nearly 9,000 residents
of 343 Chicago neighborhood clusters, more than 2,800
key community leaders, and a sample of 6,000 children
and adolescents (from birth through age 18). The
Chicago Project goes beyond previous studies by
examining individuals and their communities—
as well as individuals in their communities.
NIJ is conducting the Chicago study in partnership
with the Harvard School of Public Health. The Project
is cofunded by the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur
Foundation; the National Institute of Mental Health and
the Administration for Children, Youth and Families of
the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services;
and the U.S. Department of Education.
Understanding Community InfluencesOffers Practical Benefits The study’s focus on the effects of community and
neighborhood contexts on individual behavior offers
a deeper understanding of human development and
the role of changing social environments. Already,
researchers have amassed a wealth of information that
reveals significant ways in which the social environment
of neighborhoods shapes and determines behavior and
that identifies the developmental pathways that attract
people to or deter them from a variety of antisocial
behaviors. Preliminary analyses have provided new
insight into the origins of some of the Nation’s most
serious problems: delinquency, substance abuse, and
other forms of criminal behavior. This knowledge will
help practitioners and policymakers develop effective
strategies for prevention, intervention, treatment,
rehabilitation, and sanctions.
As the Project’s researchers explore how communities
influence individual development, they are addressing
specific questions such as, “What role is played by the
Exploring Issues of Special Concern
Preliminary analyses have provided new insight
into the origins of some of the Nation’s most
serious problems: delinquency, substance
abuse, and other forms of criminal behavior.
This knowledge will help practitioners and
policymakers develop effective strategies
for prevention, intervention, treatment,
rehabilitation, and sanctions.
economic opportunities available in a community?”
and “How are residents affected by a range of social
factors operating in the community?” Another concept
being explored is the “spheres of influence” or
“nested contexts” within the larger community,
which play important roles in human development.
These influences range from social contexts, such
as school and peer groups, to family relationships,
to an individual’s own health and temperament.
The research produced by the Chicago Project has
other useful applications. For example, the study is
generating a substantial database of information
about a major urban area—its people, institutions,
resources, and their relationships within communi-
ties—along with a detailed description of life in the
city’s neighborhoods. This information should prove
valuable to community agencies and leaders in Chicago
and other large cities.
Community Cohesion and ResidentialStability Help Reduce Crime The Project’s researchers have found that a communi-
ty’s cohesiveness offers insights into the social
mechanisms that link neighborhood poverty and
instability with high crime rates. This cohesiveness,
or collective efficacy, is defined as mutual trust and a
willingness on the part of neighborhood residents to
help maintain public order where they live. Examples
of collective efficacy include monitoring children’s play
groups; helping one another; and intervening to prevent
juvenile truancy, street-corner loitering, and similar
antisocial behavior. The researchers also found that
collective efficacy is itself influenced by the extent
of a neighborhood’s residential stability.
The study is devoting particular attention to early
childhood and family economic conditions and the ways
in which they are related to the services available in
neighborhoods. The local environment plays a crucial
role in a neighborhood’s educational, recreational, and
child care services; the question of why similar environ-
ments affect children differently, depending on their
age, gender, and ethnicity, is being examined.
Underlying factors, such as a child’s temperament
and social isolation, may produce problems for both
parents and children. The researchers are looking at
how these developments occur, hoping to generate
findings useful in developing community initiatives to
strengthen neighborhood-based service programs.
45NIJ Annual Report 1998
For More Information
Visit NIJ’s Web site at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij. Click on “Program”
and “Publications.”
Visit the Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods’
Web site at http://phdcn.harvard.edu for current Project information,
including Project brochures, descriptions of funded grants, a list of recent
scientific publications, newsletters, progress reports, press releases,
and staff contact information. Requests to receive the Project’s
quarterly newsletter, “The Chicago Project News,” can be made
via the Web site.
Project on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods (PHDCN)
Annual Report, November 1998. Available from PHDCN, Harvard School
of Public Health, 677 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115; phone:
617–432–1227.
Sampson, Robert J., and Dawn Jeglum Bartusch, Attitudes Toward Crime,
Police, and the Law: Individual and Neighborhood Differences, Research
Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute
of Justice, June 1999 (FS 000240); and Obeidallah, Dawn A., and Felton J.
Earls, Adolescent Girls: The Role of Depression in the Development of
Delinquency, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1999 (FS 000244).
Sampson, R., S. Raudenbusch, and F. Earls. “Neighborhoods and Violent
Crime: A Multilevel Study of Collective Efficacy,” Science 277:918–924;
see also by the same authors, Neighborhood Collective Efficacy:
Does It Help Reduce Violence? Research Preview, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
April 1998 (FS 000203).
Selner-O’Hagan, M.B., et al., “Assessing Exposure to Violence in Urban
Youth,” Journal of Child Psychology and Psychiatry and Allied Disciplines
39(2) (1998); see also by the same authors, Assessing the Exposure of Urban
Youth to Violence, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1996.
Overall arrests of juveniles have been declining since
1994, but persons under the age of 18 still accounted
for an estimated 19 percent of all persons arrested and
17 percent of all violent crime arrests in 1997.34 During
1998, with support from NIJ, the University of Chicago
published a special volume in the Crime and Justice
series devoted exclusively to youth crime issues.35
The volume’s 10 essays by highly respected scholars
focus especially on youth violence. Other NIJ-funded
research is examining the developmental sequences
that lead some children to engage in antisocial
behavior, safety in schools, gang-related violence,
and transfers of youth to adult courts.
Developmental Antecedents to Youth ViolenceA great deal of research has been done on the
importance of early childhood in shaping later
criminal behavior. A study of New York prison inmates
found that 68 percent of the sample reported some
form of child victimization and 23 percent reported
experiencing multiple forms of abuse and neglect,
including physical and sexual abuse.36 Such findings
have important policy implications for developing
prevention programs for youth and providing treatment
services for offenders.
NIJ-funded research also has found that one of the
most important influences in keeping violent crime
low in urban neighborhoods is collective efficacy—
that is, mutual trust among neighbors combined with
a willingness to intervene on behalf of the common
good, including supervision of neighborhood children.37
(See “Understanding Crime in Its Context: The Project
on Human Development in Chicago Neighborhoods,”
page 44, for more details about these findings.)
Safety in SchoolsAs community institutions, schools can serve as the
physical places and social networks where communities
mobilize against violence. Although children are gener-
ally safer in school than they are elsewhere, the recent
series of violent incidents has raised school crime and
safety to the highest level of priority.
According to the 1998 joint U.S. Department of
Education/U.S. Department of Justice Annual Report
on School Safety, key indicators show that few of the
murders and suicides of youth occur at school and
that most schools did not report any serious violent
crimes to police in 1996.38 Other major findings
include the following:
• The percentage of 12th graders injured in violence
at school has not changed over the 20-year period,
1976–96, although the percentage threatened with
injury showed a very slight overall upward trend.
• In 1996–97, 10 percent of all public schools report-
ed at least one serious violent crime to police.
Another 47 percent reported at least one less
serious violent or nonviolent crime. The remaining
43 percent did not report any crimes to police.
• Elementary schools were much less likely than
either middle or high schools to report any type
of crime to the police in 1996–97.
46
Selected Highlights
34 Snyder, Howard N., Juvenile Arrests 1997, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice andDelinquency Prevention, 1998 (NCJ 173938).
35 Tonry, Michael, and Mark H. Moore, eds., Youth Violence,vol. 24 in Crime and Justice: A Review of Research, Chicago:University of Chicago Press, 1998.
36 Weeks, R., and C.S. Widom, Early Childhood VictimizationAmong Incarcerated Adult Male Felons, Research Preview,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, April 1998 (FS 000204).
37 Sampson, R.J., S.W. Raudenbush, and F. Earls,Neighborhood Collective Efficacy–Does It Help Reduce
Violence? Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1998(FS 000203); and Earls, Felton, Linking Community Factorsand Individual Development, Research Preview, Washington,D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,September 1998 (FS 000230).
38 U.S. Department of Education and U.S. Department ofJustice, Annual Report on School Safety: 1998. See alsoKaufman, P., X. Chen, S.P. Choy, K.A. Chandler, C.D. Chapman,M.R. Rand, and C. Ringel, Indicators of School Crime andSafety 1998: Executive Summary, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Departments of Education and Justice, October 1998 (NCES98–251/NCJ 172215).
Examining Youth and Crime Issues
The NIJ-funded High School Youths, Weapons, and
Violence: A National Survey examined the extent
to which a national sample of male high school
sophomores and juniors was involved in or otherwise
affected by firearm-related activity and exposure to
weapons in 1996.39 Highlights of the survey findings
include the following:
• Fifty percent of the juveniles surveyed felt that
they could obtain firearms relatively easily.
• Family and friends were the primary sources
of guns.
• The majority of respondents who said they carry
or possess firearms said they did so primarily for
protection.
• Most schools had implemented some violence-
limiting measures.
An assessment of one student-level problem-solving
curriculum for 11th grade students found that the
program was responsible for a significant drop in fear
levels as well as a decline in actual incidents of crime
and violence.40 Classroom conditions improved as well;
by the end of the year, the number of teachers report-
ing that they spent a majority of their time dealing with
disruptive students had been reduced by half.
The curriculum brings together students, teachers,
administrators, and the police to identify problems and
develop responses. The program’s major components
include regular meetings among faculty, administrators,
and the police; problem-solving classes for students;
and regular reviews by police and teachers to identify
problem students.
Replication of the program is needed in different
school settings and regions of the country to determine
the project’s potential for positive outcomes.
Gang-Related ViolenceIn the area of gang violence, an NIJ-funded study
corroborates previous findings that gang members
are more likely to engage in serious and violent crimes.
More significantly, however, the research identified
windows of opportunity for intervention and revealed
that, contrary to popular belief, reprisals suffered by
those youths who resisted overtures to join a gang
were often milder than the serious assaults endured
by youths during gang initiation.41
These findings underscore the need for effective
gang-resistance education programs directed at
preteens, especially those prone to delinquent and
violent behavior.
In another NIJ study, interviews with 16- to 24-year-old
males with violent histories revealed that young men
saw violence as a way to achieve and maintain social
power and dominance. It also was seen as a means
to acquire flashy cars, control or humiliate others,
defy authority, settle drug-related disputes, attain
retribution, satisfy the need for thrills, and respond to
challenges of one’s manhood. The presence of guns,
alcohol, or drugs also tended to influence social inter-
actions leading to violence. The study identified several
factors, such as the reaction of bystanders, that affect
outcomes. Findings indicate that teaching negotiation
and conflict avoidance skills under conditions that
mimic the street can be effective.42
Europeans are seeing a significant increase in juvenile
crime, and the trends in juvenile violence in Europe
appear to parallel the American experience. Although
socioeconomic conditions such as rising unemployment
and poverty were linked with increased juvenile
crime rates, one study of European gangs revealed
that an individual’s family history of violence was a
key indicator.43
47NIJ Annual Report 1998
39 Sheley, J.F., and J.D. Wright, High School Youths, Weapons,and Violence: A National Survey, Research in Brief,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, October 1998 (NCJ 172857).
40 Kenney, D., Crime in the Schools: A Problem-SolvingApproach, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1998(FS 000224).
41 Huff, C.R., Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangsand At-Risk Youth, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October1998 (NCJ 172852).
42 Fagan, J., Adolescent Violence: A View From the Street,Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, January 1998 (FS 000189).
43 Pfeiffer, C., Trends in Juvenile Violence in EuropeanCountries, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, May 1998 (FS 000202).
Juvenile Transfers to Adult CourtsSeveral ongoing studies are examining the implications
of the trend to adjudicate serious juvenile offenders in
adult courts rather than through the juvenile justice
system. According to the National Survey on Sentencing
Structures, 35 States have made it easier to transfer
juveniles to adult courts, and a larger number of youths
are being sentenced as adults and incarcerated in adult
prisons.
Placing juveniles in adult facilities raises several issues:
• Housing: Integrating youth with adult inmates
exposes them to potential rape or assault; yet
segregated housing may not be available, and
isolation for protection may increase the risk
of suicide.
• Programming: Juveniles may be subject to
mandatory education laws in addition to having
different needs in terms of diet and physical exer-
cise. Discipline methods for incarcerated adults
may not be appropriate for juveniles.
• Recidivism: The most common change in State
juvenile laws in recent years has been in transfer-
ring juveniles to the adult court system.44 However,
the findings about how transferring juveniles to the
adult criminal justice system affects recidivism
rates are quite limited.
Many States also have changed their laws with regard to
confidentiality of a juvenile’s criminal record and now
are opening court proceedings to the public. Several
States have created laws that make the juvenile’s par-
ents accountable for the child’s crimes. For example,
some States require parents to pay court or supervi-
sion fees. Legislation passed in 1995 in Idaho, Indiana,
and New Hampshire requires parents to pay fees
toward their child’s custody in a State institution.
48
Selected Highlights
For More Information
Fagan, J., Adolescent Violence: A View From the Street, Research Preview,
Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice,
January 1998 (FS 000189).
Greenwood, P.W., Costs and Benefits of Early Childhood Intervention,
OJJDP Fact Sheet, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention,
February 1999 (FS 9994).
Huff, C.R., Comparing the Criminal Behavior of Youth Gangs and
At-Risk Youth, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department
of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998 (NCJ 172852).
Joint Justice Department and Education Department Report
Shows Most Crime Against Students Occurs Away From Schools,
BJS Fact Sheet, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice,
Bureau of Justice Statistics, October 1998 (NCES 98–251).
Kaufman, P., X. Chen, S.P. Choy, K.A. Chandler, C.D. Chapman, M.R. Rand, and C.
Ringel, Indicators of School Crime and Safety 1998, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Departments of Education and Justice, 1998 (NCES 98–251/NCJ 172215).
Kenney, D., Crime in the Schools: A Problem-Solving Approach,
Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, August 1998 (FS 000224).
Pfeiffer, C., Trends in Juvenile Violence in European Countries,
Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National
Institute of Justice, May 1998 (NCJ 167029).
Sheley, J.F., and J.D. Wright, High School Youths, Weapons,
and Violence: A National Survey, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, October 1998 (NCJ 172857).
Tonry, Michael, and Mark H. Moore, eds., Youth Violence, vol. 24 in Crime and
Justice: A Review of Research, Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1998.
Weeks, R., and C.S. Widom, Early Childhood Victimization Among Incarcerated
Adult Male Felons, Research Preview, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of
Justice, National Institute of Justice, April 1998 (FS 000204).
44 1996 National Survey of State Sentencing Structures,Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau ofJustice Assistance, September 1998 (NCJ 169270).
The number of people incarcerated in the United
States has more than tripled since 1980, and now tops
1 million.45 And although the rate of increase seems to
be leveling out, prison populations continue to rise.
A significant portion of this growth is attributable to
sentencing reforms, such as mandatory-minimum and
three-strikes laws, and to changing policies on parole
release. The challenge of managing the influx of offend-
ers has given rise to new approaches based in the
courts and elsewhere. It also has generated new ways
of thinking about how to manage the increasing number
of offenders who are released into the community after
serving their sentence and how to deal with the public
safety issues that accompany their release.
Effects of Sentencing Reform The amount of time offenders serve in prison is almost
always less than the time they are sentenced to serve.46
According to some critics of sentencing practices, large
differences between time sentenced and served—
particularly for violent offenders—drive a conceptual
wedge between public expectations of punishment and
systems practice, eroding public confidence.
To ensure that violent offenders serve larger portions
of their sentences, Congress established the Violent
Offender Incarceration and Truth-in-Sentencing
(VOI/TIS) program through the 1994 Crime Act.
Through grants to States, VOI/TIS helps States to
ensure that violent offenders are incarcerated with
more certainty and with longer, more determinate
sentences.
NIJ has been working with the Justice Department’s
Corrections Program Office (CPO) to support research
aimed at understanding the impacts of VOI/TIS.
Collaborating with CPO and consulting with corrections
practitioners, sentencing policymakers, and
researchers, NIJ is evaluating programs funded
under VOI/TIS and conducting related research
that will improve the ability of State and local jurisdic-
tions to achieve the goals of their violent offender
and truth-in-sentencing programs.
Rethinking JusticeTo explore sentencing issues in depth, NIJ and CPO
launched a series of executive sessions on sentencing
and its implications for corrections. Begun in 1998, the
sessions bring together practitioners and scholars
foremost in their fields to find out if there are better
ways to think about the purposes, functions, and
interdependence of sentencing and corrections.
To better manage the flow of offenders, many jurisdic-
tions are experimenting with specialized courts that
streamline case processing and make services available
to keep defendants from returning to court. Drug
courts, for example, feature a treatment component,
backed by the authority of the judge. NIJ-sponsored
evaluations of drug courts in several jurisdictions are
now under way, with preliminary findings showing
reduction in reoffending by those sentenced. The
issue of cost-effectiveness is of particular interest
in these evaluations.
Restorative justice, another fairly recent innovation,
attempts to repair the harm caused by crime and
rebuild relationships in the community. The victim’s
perspective is central to deciding how to repair the
harm caused by crime. The sanctions imposed also
depart from tradition, requiring offenders to accept
responsibility and act to repair the harm they caused.
NIJ has been active in promoting the understanding
of restorative justice in a number of ways. Regional
symposia, for example, have produced an online
“notebook,” which is available at NIJ’s Web page
(www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/rest-just/index.htm).
49NIJ Annual Report 1998
Issues in Sentencing and Corrections
45 Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States, 1996, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, April 1999 (NCJ171103):iii.
46 Ditton, Paula M., and Doris James Wilson, Truth inSentencing in State Prisons, Special Report, Washington, D.C.:U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics,January 1999 (NCJ 170032).
50
Selected Highlights
Like restorative justice, community justice aims to
“restore” victim and offender, but is distinctive in its
focus on the community. Local residents work on an
equal footing with government agencies to identify
needs and responses, with partnerships formed among
the various stakeholders. Along with other Office of
Justice Programs bureaus, NIJ cosponsored a major
conference on community justice in 1998.
Correctional Health Care Changing trends in the health of prison and jail popula-
tions have brought health care issues to the top of the
corrections management agenda. NIJ continues its
work with the Centers for Disease Control and
Prevention (CDC) to measure the extent of HIV/AIDS,
sexually transmitted diseases, and tuberculosis in
prisons and jails. Surveys have identified high rates
of infection. The most recent survey (1994–95)
confirmed that AIDS is far more prevalent among
inmates than in the overall U.S. population.47
The results of the 1996–97 survey are expected
in mid-1999.
Federal courts have confirmed prisoners’ constitutional
right to adequate health care. Providing access to
specialist physicians can be difficult because correc-
tional facilities are often in rural areas where special-
ists are in short supply, and taking prisoners to special-
ists outside the prison poses security risks.
Telemedicine, the remote delivery of health care via
telecommunications, holds great promise as an alterna-
tive. This new mode of care has been successfully
demonstrated and implemented in a correctional
setting, under NIJ sponsorship.48 It has the potential
to contain costs while improving access to medical
specialists not otherwise available.
Women OffendersManaging and meeting the needs of female prisoners
are issues that have come to the forefront because of
the surge in their numbers in the past decade. Although
women still account for a small proportion of the
prison population, their numbers are increasing much
faster than that of male inmates. Women’s needs are
distinct in part because of their disproportionate
victimization from sexual or physical abuse and their
responsibility for children.
A Department of Justice update on women in criminal
justice focused considerable attention on women
offenders and female juvenile offenders. The report,
which NIJ was instrumental in preparing, noted that the
increased number of women offenders has not been
matched by enhanced attention to specialized pro-
grams. In a separate study, correctional officials and
administrators identified a number of needs related to
women offenders: a greater number of alternatives to
incarceration; classification and screening for needs
related to childhood sexual abuse, spousal abuse,
and offenders’ children; management styles that
differ from those used with men; and more drug
treatment and mental health services.
The corrections officials identified effective or innova-
tive programs, citing those that offer strong female role
models, the chance to form supportive peer networks,
and attention to women’s particular experiences as
victims of abuse and as parents.49 To further spotlight
promising programs for women offenders, NIJ
examined the New York City-based Women’s Prison
Association, which offers an array of services, including
transitional assistance to women who are HIV-positive
or at risk of contracting HIV.50
47 The incidence of AIDS among State and Federal inmates in1994–95 was 518 per 100,000, and among city and countyinmates 706. By contrast, the incidence in the U.S. population(1993 data) was 41 per 100,000. Hammett, Theodore M., et al.,1994 Update: HIV/AIDS and STD’s in Correctional Facilities,Issues and Practices, Washington, D.C.: National Institute ofJustice and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention,December 1995 (NCJ 156832).
48 McDonald, Douglas C., et al., Telemedicine Can ReduceCorrectional Health Care Costs: An Evaluation of a PrisonTelemedicine Network, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, March 1999 (NCJ 175040).
49 Office of Justice Programs, Women in Criminal Justice: A 20-Year Update, Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, 1998 (NCJ 173416); and Morash, Merry,Timothy S. Bynum, and Barbara A. Koons, Women Offenders:Programming Needs and Promising Approaches, Research inBrief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, August 1998 (NCJ 171668).
50 Conly, Catherine, The Women’s Prison Association:Supporting Women Offenders and Their Families, ProgramFocus, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, NationalInstitute of Justice, December 1998 (NCJ 172858).
51NIJ Annual Report 1998
Residential Substance Abuse TreatmentCriminologists recognize that the high proportion of
offenders who are substance abusers makes in-custody
treatment appropriate for this population.51 The 1994
Crime Act provided expanded funds for residential sub-
stance abuse treatment, encouraging the States to
adopt comprehensive programs, including relapse pre-
vention and aftercare. The Corrections Program Office
of the Department of Justice, which administers the
program, transferred funds to NIJ to evaluate these
programs in several States. These process evaluations
are now nearing completion.
Reentry Communities face public safety and health concerns
when large numbers of offenders are released and
returned to their homes. In addition, ex-offenders need
to secure jobs to reduce their risk of recidivism and
increase the likelihood that their reentry will go
smoothly.
Health care after release. The health risk posed by
inmates returning to the community suggests the need
for collaboration between public health and correc-
tions. In a study conducted with the CDC, NIJ found
that virtually all correctional systems undertake some
collaboration with public health agencies, but needs
persist, especially in discharge planning and transition-
al services.52 Working with the National Commission
on Correctional Health Care, NIJ is identifying the
health care needs of soon-to-be-released inmates,
with the goal of generating evidence useful for
informing public policy to better protect offender
and community health.
Academic and life skills programming. Finding
a job can be a problem for released offenders because
they often lack skills, have little or no job-seeking
experience, and may encounter employers who refuse
to hire people with criminal records. Prisons have long
offered academic and life skills programs to help meet
offenders’ needs. NIJ, the National Institute of
Corrections, and the U.S. Department of Education’s
Office of Correctional Education have cooperated on a
number of projects addressing these job and educa-
tional needs. The Delaware Life Skills Program, for
example, offers academic, violence reduction, and life
For More Information
Visit the Sentencing and Adjudication section of the NIJ Web page at
http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/saap/welcome.html.
Bureau of Justice Statistics, Correctional Populations in the United States,
1996, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, April 1999 (NCJ 171103).
Ditton, Paula M., and Doris James Wilson, Truth in Sentencing in State Prisons,
Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice
Statistics, January 1999 (NCJ 170032).
Hammett, Theodore M., Public Health/Corrections Collaborations: Prevention
and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, STD’s, and TB, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998
(NCJ 169590).
Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness of Treatment for Drug Abusers Under
Criminal Justice Supervision, Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S.
Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, November 1995
(NCJ 157642).
McDonald, Douglas C., et al., Telemedicine Can Reduce Correctional Health
Care Costs: An Evaluation of a Prison Telemedicine Network, Washington, D.C.:
U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, March 1999
(NCJ 175040); and McDonald, Douglas C., Andrea Hassol, and Kenneth Carlson,
“Can Telemedicine Reduce Spending and Improve Prisoner Health Care?”
in NIJ Journal, April 1999 (JR 000239).
Morash, Merry, Timothy S. Bynum, and Barbara A. Koons, Women Offenders:
Programming Needs and Promising Approaches, Research in Brief, Washington,
D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, August 1998
(NCJ 171668).
Office of Justice Programs, Women in Criminal Justice: A 20-Year Update,
Special Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Justice, 1998
(NCJ 173416).
51 See, for example, Lipton, Douglas S., The Effectiveness ofTreatment for Drug Abusers Under Criminal Justice Supervision,Research Report, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department ofJustice, National Institute of Justice, November 1995 (NCJ157642):2–3.
52 Hammett, Theodore M., Public Health/CorrectionsCollaborations: Prevention and Treatment of HIV/AIDS, STD’s,and TB, Research in Brief, Washington, D.C.: U.S. Departmentof Justice, National Institute of Justice, July 1998 (NCJ 169590).
52
Selected Highlights
skills training.53 Although programs have not been rigor-
ously evaluated, it is clear that certain components have
been successful among some inmates.
Case management. To aid in the reentry process,
some jurisdictions have borrowed the case manage-
ment approach of mental health and social service
workers. Most often used by probation and parole offi-
cers, case management aims to deliver services geared
to reducing recidivism and to address health care
issues, including drug treatment, joblessness, and
homelessness. NIJ examined several case management
models and the major issues they raise. The greatest
contribution of the approach to date has been to
reduce recidivism and supervision costs for mentally
disordered or developmentally disabled offenders.54
53 Finn, Peter, The Delaware Department of Correction LifeSkills Program, Program Focus, Washington, D.C.: NationalInstitute of Justice and National Institute of Corrections,August 1998 (NCJ 169589).
54 Healey, Kerry Murphy, Case Management in the CriminalJustice System, Research in Action, Washington, D.C.: U.S.Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, February1999 (NCJ 173409).
53NIJ Annual Report 1998
This appendix presents the grants,
interagency and cooperative agree-
ments, contracts, and fellowships
awarded by the National Institute
of Justice during fiscal year 1998.
The awards reflect research,
development, evaluation, training,
dissemination, and technical sup-
port projects, including those sup-
ported by the Violent Crime
Control and Law Enforcement Act
of 1994 (the Crime Act) and those
conducted in partnership with
other Federal agencies.
An annual open solicitation for
proposals invites investigators
to initiate research and evaluation
in broadly defined topic areas;
more focused solicitations are
issued throughout the year on
specific topics and programs,
including those emphasized by the
Crime Act.
Organization Of This Appendix
The awards are listed alphabeti-
cally by project title within 16
major topic areas with additional
subcategories. Listed under each
project title are the awardee orga-
nization, principal investigator or
contractor, award amount, and
award number. Award numbers
beginning with a number other
than 98 identify previous years’
awards that received supplements
in 1998.
An asterisk (*) before the project
name means the award was made
with funds appropriated under the
Crime Act.
Appendix A: Awards Made in Fiscal Year 1998
For More Information
The Institute’s mission and approach to research is described in the NIJ Prospectus, Building Knowledge about Crime and Justice.
For online access to this listing as well as information about publications, programs, funding opportunities, and other aspects of NIJ, visit NIJ’s World Wide Web page at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij, the Justice Information Center at http://www.ncjrs.org, or contact the National Criminal Justice Reference Service at (301) 519–5500 or (800) 851–3420.
Corrections
Addressing Sentencing-Related Changes inCorrectional Health Care: Building a Researcher-PractitionerPartnershipUniversity of Texas MedicalBranchJacques Baillargeon$150,013 98–CE–VX–0022
*Baseline Psychopathologyin Women’s Prison: Its Impact on InstitutionalAdjustment and Treatment EfficacyUniversity of VirginiaJanet Warren$148,457 98–CE–VX–0027
*Building an EffectiveResearch CollaborationBetween the PennsylvaniaDepartment of Correctionsand Temple UniversityTemple UniversityJack R. Greene$159,801 98–CE–VX–0016
Case Classification in Com-munity Corrections: NationalSurvey of the State of the ArtUniversity of CincinnatiEdward Latessa$59,559 98–IJ–CX–0008
*Changing Prison Strategiesin Response to ViolentOffender Incarceration/Truth-in-Sentencing LegislationRAND CorporationNancy Merritt$178,708 98–CE–VX–0023
*Community Jails StatewideResearch ConsortiumUniversity of Alaska, AnchorageNancy E. Schafter$49,892 98–CE–VX–0014
*Crime, Coercion, andCommunities: The UnintendedConsequences of Removal onCommunity OrganizationUrban InstituteWilliam J. Sabol$166,827 98–CE–VX–0004
54
Appendixes
Are Hung Juries a Problem?National Center for State CourtsVictor Flango$169,588 98–IJ–CX–0048
Community Justice Planning GrantCounty of Travis, TexasChriss Wetherington$49,959 98–IJ–CX–0045
Domestic Violence Courts:Jurisdiction, Organization,Performance Goals, and MeasuresNational Center for State CourtsSusan Keilitz$124,170 98–WT–VX–0002
Evaluation of Post-adjudication Felony DrugCourtUniversity of Florida, GainesvilleRonald L. Akers$22,374 98–IJ–CX–0051
An Evaluation and Review of the PeacemakerCourt of the Navajo NationTemple UniversityEric Gross$3,990 97–IJ–CX–0039
An Evaluation of Safe Streets Now!Justice Research CenterJan Roehl$163,426 98–IJ–CX–0058
Impact of Community and Legal Context on the Adjudication and Sentencing ProcessJoint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc.Christopher D. Maxwell$24,973 98–IJ–CX–0023
Increasing OurUnderstanding of theRecovery Process ThroughDrug Court NarrativesSyracuse UniversityMary Ann Holmquist$49,608 98–IJ–CX–0041
A Review of SpecializedCourts: Key Issues inHandling Child Abuse and Neglect CasesUrban InstituteAdele Harrell$75,243 97–IJ–CX–0013
Effects of Change Over Timein Numbers and Compositionof State Prison Populationson the Level of CrimeUniversity of New MexicoBert Useem$21,551 98–IJ–CX–0085
Evaluation of the New MexicoDepartment of CorrectionsWork-Release ProgramUniversity of New MexicoBert Useem$199,816 98–CE–VX–0005
*Evolving Optimum PrisonClassification Policies in theImplementation of Truth inSentencing: A Dynamic ModelSouth Carolina Department ofCorrectionsLorraine T. Fowler$149,585 98–CE–VX–0025
*Explaining Instability in theNew Mexico Female PrisonPopulationUniversity of New MexicoGary Lafree$51,458 98–CE–VX–0020
*Georgia Cognitive Skills Experiment: Georgia Board of Pardonsand ParoleUniversity of CincinnatiPatricia Van Voorhis$143,861 98–CE–VX–0013
*Government Managementof Prison PrivatizationAbt Associates Inc.Terence Dunworth$247,438 98–CE–VX–0002
Health Status of Soon-To-Be-ReleasedInmatesNational Commission onCorrectional Health CareRobert Greifinger$500,000 97–IJ–CX–K018
Impact Assessment of Sex Offender Community Notification on Wisconsin CommunitiesMarquette UniversityRichard G. Zevitz$49,972 98–IJ–CX–0015
*Impact of Incarceration on Crime, Crime Patterns,and Crime RatesUniversity of California, BerkeleyJose Canela-Cacho$149,998 98–CE–VX–0029
Nighttime Incarceration as an Intermediate Sanction: An Evaluation of the Oklahoma CountyProgramUniversity of OklahomaDepartment of Public SafetyThomas E. James$167,114 98–IJ–CX–0011
*Unintended Consequencesof Sentencing Policy: Key Issues in DevelopingStrategies to Address Long-Term Care NeedsPennsylvania State UniversityCynthia Massie$131,768 98–CE–VX–0011
Courts
55NIJ Annual Report 1998
The Children-at-RiskProgram: A Study of theFeasibility of a Longer Term EvaluationUrban InstituteAdele Harrell$34,431 92–DD–CX–0031
Commission on Behavioraland Social Sciences and EducationNational Science FoundationCheryl Eavey$25,000 98–IJ–CX–A050
Does Community CrimePrevention Make aDifference?Illinois Criminal JusticeInformation AuthorityCarolyn Rebecca Block$138,067 98–WT–VX–0022
Effects of Casino Gamblingon Crime and Quality of Life in New CasinoJurisdictionsUniversity of Nevada, RenoGrant Stitt$252,331 98–IJ–CX–0037
Labor Markets and Crime: Criminal JusticePolicy and Research IssuesOrlando Rodriguez, NIJ Visiting Fellow$115,764 98–IJ–CX–0047
*Process Evaluation ofMaryland’s Hot SpotCommunities ProgramUrban InstituteJeffrey A. Roth$329,237 98–IJ–CX–0029
Project on HumanDevelopment in ChicagoNeighborhoodsHarvard UniversityFelton J. Earls$2,200,000 93–IJ–CX–K005
*Assistance in CrimeMapping and AnalysisTechnology for EnhancingLaw Enforcement andProsecution CoordinationHunter CollegeVictor Goldsmith$63,648 98–LB–VX–0004
*Combining Police andProbation Research toReduce BurglaryArizona State UniversityVincent Webb$224,118 98–IJ–CX–0059
Community SafetyInformation SystemImplementationU.S. Department of Justice, Civil Rights DivisionNancy Sweesy$399,640 98–IJ–CX–A063
*Crime Hot SpotForecasting: Modeling and Comparative EvaluationCarnegie Mellon UniversityWilpen Gorr$200,110 98–IJ–CX–K005
Crime Mapping ResearchCenter Fellowship ProgramJulie D. Wartell, NIJ Visiting Fellow$90,857 98–LB–VX–0003
*Detection and Prediction of GeographicalChanges in CrimeState University of New York,BuffaloPeter Rogerson$221,520 98–IJ–CX–K008
*GIS Analysis of theRelationship Between Public Order and MoreSerious CrimeUniversity of Texas, AustinWilliam R. Kelly$147,166 98–IJ–CX–K009
*GITS: Further AnalysesUsing Orange County’sMultijurisdictional Gang Incident Tracking SystemUniversity of California, IrvineJames W. Meeker$103,060 98–IJ–CX–0072
Innovative Crime MappingTechniques and SpatialAnalysis: Phase IIHunter CollegeVictor Goldsmith$249,821 97–LB–VX–K013
*Mapping Crime: Principle and PracticeUniversity of Maryland, Baltimore CountyKeith D. Harries$20,000 98–LB–VX–0009
Predictive Methods for Crime AnalysisUniversity of VirginiaD.E. Brown, Visiting Fellow$139,043 98–LB–VX–0008
*Predictive Models for Law EnforcementUniversity of VirginiaD.E. Brown, Visiting Fellow$299,940 98–IJ–CX–K010
Using a High-Definition Geo-graphic Information Systemto Enhance CommunityPolicing on College CampusesTemple UniversityGeorge Rengert$248,662 98–IJ–CX–0001
Crime Mapping
Crime Prevention
Drugs and Crime,General
Breaking the Cycle ResearchDemonstration ProjectJacksonville (Florida)Judith A. Truett$3,000,000 98–IJ–CX–K013
Breaking the Cycle ResearchDemonstration ProjectPierce County (Washington)AllianceDean Wilson$3,000,000 98–IJ–CX–K011
Breaking the Cycle ResearchDemonstration ProjectUniversity of Alabama, BirminghamL. Foster Cook$2,812,302 96–IJ–CX–0065
*Classifying Inmates forStrategic ProgrammingVera Institute of Justice, Inc.Douglas Young$128,240 98–CE–VX–0010
Evaluation of aComprehensive Service-Based Intervention toReduce Substance AbuseYale UniversityDenise Stevens$191,718 98–IJ–CX–0053
Evaluation of La Bodega dela Familia: A Family DrugCrisis CenterVera Institute of Justice, Inc.Douglas Young$159,980 98–IJ–CX–0049
A Life Course Model ofCareer in Crime andSubstance AbuseUniversity of MinnesotaChristopher Uggen$45,903 98–IJ–CX–0036
Operation Drug TESTDistrict of Columbia PretrialServices AgencyGerry Chapman$265,273 98–IJ–CX–A009
PharmChem Drug Testing LaboratoryPharmChem Laboratories, Inc.Elizabeth M. Lison$36,000 98–IJ–CX–C010
Sacramento Batterer/DrugIntervention ExperimentCalifornia State University,SacramentoCarole Barnes$99,905 98–IJ–CX–K014
Why Haven’t Drug PricesRisen With TougherEnforcement? Modeling theBehavior of Drug MarketsUniversity of Maryland, College ParkPeter Reuter$260,730 98–IJ–CX–0040
Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring/Drug UseForecasting Programs
The Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring (ADAM) program,which was expanded from theDrug Use Forecasting (DUF) program in 1997, performs drugtests on samples of arresteesbrought to booking facilities at 23 sites. The test findings indicatelevels of drug use, determine whatdrugs are used in specific jurisdic-tions, and track changes inarrestees’ drug use patterns.
Dallas ADAMCounty of DallasPat McMillan$7,636 94–IJ–CX–A039
DUF Program: AssistanceWith Program OperationsAspen Systems CorporationDebra Hoffmaster$152,310 93–IJ–CX–C002
DUF—Washington, D.C.District of Columbia PretrialServices AgencyKathryn Boyer$9,010 95–IJ–CX–A024
Ft. Lauderdale ADAMBroward County Sheriff’s OfficeRon Cochran$12,293 94–IJ–CX–A030
Houston ADAMHouston-Galveston Area CouncilBrett Arkinson$31,965 95–IJ–CX–A008
Indianapolis ADAMMarion County Justice AgencyCindy Mowery$11,554 95–IJ–CX–A013
Los Angeles ADAMUniversity of California, LosAngelesDouglas Anglin$48,157 97–IJ–CX–A007
Manhattan ADAMNew York City Department ofMental Health, MentalRetardation, and AlcoholismServicesPatricia Thomas$39,884 94–IJ–CX–A013
Miami ADAMMiami County Department ofHuman ServicesRaphael Martinez$9,734 98–IJ–CX–A012
*Rural ADAM ProjectUniversity of Nebraska, OmahaDenise C. Herz$26,104 98–IJ–CX–0065
Support Services for ADAM ProgramAbt Associates Inc.D. Hunt$4,694,545 98–IJ–CX–C001
Residential SubstanceAbuse Treatment (RSAT)Program
*A Collaborative Evaluationof Pennsylvania’s Programfor Drug-Involved ViolatorsVera Institute of Justice, Inc.Douglas Young$59,989 98–RT–VX–K002
56
Appendixes
Drugs and Crime
Annual Review of Justice ResearchCastine Research CorporationMichael Tonry$170,592 92–IJ–CX–K044
Committee on Law and Justice Core SupportNational Academy of SciencesCarol Petrie$210,000 98–IJ–CX–0030
Crime AtlasJustice Research and StatisticsAssociationJoan C. Weiss$89,501 98–IJ–CX–K001
Criminal Justice ResearchTraining ProgramUniversity of Maryland, College ParkCharles Wellford$25,000 95–IJ–CX–A033
Data Resources Program of the National Institute of JusticeUniversity of MichiganPaul J. Stemple$458,082 95–IJ–CX–C005
Developing CommunicationsInitiatives in CriminalJusticeCF Productions, Inc.Thomas V. Brady$52,000 98–IJ–CX–0076
Development and Productionof Annual Reports and Other MaterialsCygnus CorporationTodd Phillips$26,000 94–IJ–CX–C005
*Idaho Criminal JusticeStatisticsIdaho Department of LawEnforcementRobert C. Uhlenkott$50,000 97–MU–MU–K016
John B. Pickett Fellowship in Criminal Justice Policyand ManagementHarvard UniversitySusan Michaelson$99,600 92–IJ–CX–0012
National Criminal JusticeReference Service (NCJRS)Aspen Systems CorporationRichard Rosenthal$10,889,355 94–MU–CX–C006
National Institute of JusticePublications SupportPalladian Partners, Inc.Cate Timmerman$113,874 98–IJ–CX–C009
Policy Forums on CrimeIssues for State PolicymakersNational Governors’ Association,Center for Best PracticesDavid E. Brown$70,000 98–IJ–CX–0054
Professional Conference SeriesInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.Edward F. Connors$129,400 94–MU–CX–C008
Research ApplicationContractAbt Associates Inc.Catherine Conly$1,156,371 94–MU–CX–C007
Scholarly Conference: “Why Is Crime Decreasing?”Northwestern UniversityJohn P. Heinz$21,680 98–IJ–CX–0046
Technical Assistance for NIJ’s ProfessionalConference SeriesInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.Edward F. Connors$1,200,000 98–IJ–CX–C002
*Technical Assistance and SupportCSR, Inc.Edward J. Spurlock$6,313,071 96–MU–MU–C004
57NIJ Annual Report 1998
Evaluation of the Barnstable County Sheriff’s Department’s RSAT ProgramMassachusetts Executive Office of Public SafetyDiane Brensilber$59,990 98–RT–VX–K006
*Evaluation of Jail-BasedTreatment in VirginiaUniversity of Maryland, College ParkBruce Kubu$59,982 98–RT–VX–K001
*Evaluation of Wisconsin’sResidential Substance AbuseTreatment Program forFemale State PrisonersUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonD. Paul Moberg$59,864 98–RT–VX–K003
*Local Process Evaluation ofthe Michigan Department ofCorrections RSAT ProgramNational Council on Crime and DelinquencyJames Austin$60,000 98–RT–VX–K007
*Outcome Evaluation ofWisconsin Dual DiagnosisTreatment ProgramUniversity of Wisconsin, MadisonD. Paul Moberg$99,351 98–RT–VX–K005
*Process Assessment ofCorrectional TreatmentTexas Christian UniversityKevin Knight$59,946 98–RT–VX–K004
Information Dissemination and General Support
Policing, General
*COMPSTAT andOrganizational Changes: A National AssessmentPolice FoundationDavid Weisburd$351,861 98–IJ–CX–0070
Curbing Police Brutality:What Works?Eastern Michigan UniversityLiqun Cao$25,000 98–IJ–CX–0064
*The Force Factor:Measuring Police Use ofForce Relative to SuspectResistanceUniversity of South CarolinaGeoffrey Alpert$270,173 98–IJ–CX–0018
Frontiers of PolicingState University of New York,AlbanyDavid Bayley$49,994 98–IJ–CX–0017
*Identifying Correlates ofPolice Deviance: AnEmpirical Study of PoliceCorruption and Brutality inNew York (1975–1996)Temple UniversityJack R. Greene$298,719 96–IJ–CX–0053
*Measuring the Effectivenessof the Police Corps ModelAllegheny CountySusan Allen$223,377 98–IJ–CX–0084
Monitoring and ModelingImpacts of PolicingInitiativesNational Development andResearch Institutes, Inc.Bruce D. Johnson$212,999 98–IJ–CX–K012
The Phoenix Project:Predictors of Suspect Use of ForceCharlotte Research CenterRussell Johnson$24,991 98–IJ–CX–0071
Police Perjury: Deviance or UtilitarianismMichael O. Foley$17,125 98–IJ–CX–0032
*Process Evaluation of Police Restructuring in the District of ColumbiaUrban InstituteJeffrey A. Roth$440,803 98–IJ–CX–K007
*Reducing NonemergencyCalls to 911: FourApproachesUniversity of CincinnatiLorraine Green Mazerolle$399,919 98–IJ–CX–0067
*Responding to the Problem Police Officer: An Evaluation of EarlyWarning SystemsUniversity of Nebraska, OmahaSamuel Walker$174,643 98–IJ–CX–0002
*Structure of LargeMunicipal PoliceOrganizationsUniversity of Nebraska, OmahaMary Laura Farnham$177,159 98–IJ–CX–0003
*Supporting Police IntegrityTemple UniversityJack R. Greene$221,589 98–IJ–CX–0066
*Turnover Among AlaskaVillage Public SafetyOfficers: An Examination of the Factors AssociatedWith AttritionUniversity of Alaska, AnchorageDarryl Wood$48,995 98–IJ–CX–0035
Update and Expansion of the RAND Survey RegardingState and Local PoliceInvestigative ProcessesMichigan State UniversityFrank Horvath$108,442 98–IJ–CX–0057
*Use of Force by theMontgomery County Police DepartmentJoint Centers for Justice Studies, Inc.Joel Garner$76,034 98–IJ–CX–0086
*Women in Policing:Assessing the WorkEnvironmentNew Traditions for Women, Inc.Donna Milgram$93,281 98–IJ–CX–0013
58
Appendixes
The Internet Studio: Building Technical Support Infrastructure for NIJ’s InternationalProgramRule of Law FoundationSergey Chapkey$293,413 98–IJ–CX–0007
Links Between Internationaland Domestic Sex IndustriesCoalition Against TraffickingWomenJanice Raymond$188,677 98–WT–VX–0032
The Role of Local LawEnforcement in Controlling
Illegal Immigration andOther Transnational CrimeGeorgetown UniversityWilliam F. McDonald$44,988 95–IJ–CX–0110
Transnational OrganizedCrime WorkshopNational Academy of SciencesFaith Mitchell$75,000 98–IJ–CX–0019
International Crime
Policing
Community Policing
*Building EffectiveStrategies for CommunityPolicingState University of New York,AlbanyRaymond Hunt$140,991 95–IJ–CX–0081
*Community PolicingStrategies: First NationalSurvey UpdateMacro International, Inc.Billy Jones$39,972 96–IJ–CX–0045
Evaluating CommunityPolicing in Public Housing:South Philadelphia InitiativeTemple UniversityJack R. Greene$191,475 98–IJ–CX–0052
*An Evaluation of the DallasPolice DepartmentInteractive CommunityPolicing ProgramUniversity of Texas, ArlingtonCharles H. Mindel$295,570 95–IJ–CX–0070
*Organizational Issues inCommunity Policing: Effectsof Geographical and StaffingModels on CommunityPolicingCity of San DiegoDonna J. Warlick$176,230 98–IJ–CX–0016
*Police Department andPolice Officer AssociationLeaders’ Perceptions ofCommunity PolicingUniversity of CincinnatiLawrence Travis$139,052 98–IJ–CX–0005
*Policing in a CommunityContextUniversity of CincinnatiJames Frank$373,971 98–IJ–CX–0063
*Problem Solving Strategiesand Tactics for CommunityPolicingCity of San DiegoDonna J. Warlick$213,119 98–IJ–CX–0080
*Transition: Creating aCulture of CommunityPolicingUniversity of New MexicoMarjorie Hudson$177,124 98–IJ–CX–0073
*Wave 4 CommunityOriented Policing Services(COPS) EvaluationUrban InstituteJeffrey A. Roth$427,775 98–IJ–CX–0087
Corrections and LawEnforcement FamilySupport
*Creating Positive Mentors:Provision of SupervisorySkills Training for Sergeantsand Field Training OfficersMiami Police DepartmentPaul Sherpard$45,425 96–FS–VX–0003
*Corrections OfficerMaintenance ProgramConnecticut Department ofCorrectionsRobert Munroe$99,990 98–FS–VX–0003
*Law Enforcement andCorrections Family SupportCity of East Lansing (Michigan)Patricia E. Nowak$10,202 98–FS–VX–0001
*Law Enforcement andFamily Support ProgramIowa State UniversityEugene Deisinger$147,395 96–FS–VX–0006
Law Enforcement FamilySupport ProjectMichigan State Police, ForensicScience DivisionGary Kaufman$41,422 98–FS–VX–0007
*Longview PoliceDepartment Prevention andTreatment of StressLongview Police Guild(Washington)Jim Duscha$49,252 98–FS–VX–0006
*Modern Prison WorkSouthern Illinois UniversityJody Sundt$99,934 98–CE–VX–0021
Online Education, Resources, and Support for Law EnforcementFamiliesNashville-Davidson County(Tennessee)Lorraine Williams-Greene$99,559 98–FS–VX–0004
*Peer Support ProgramFraternal Order of Police, OldPueblo Lodge #51 (Tuscon,Arizona)Larry Morris$224,016 98–FS–VX–0005
Police Family Life Education ProjectPhiladelphia Police DepartmentMitchell Yanak$73,447 98–FS–VX–0002
*Reaching Out to NorthCarolina’s Law EnforcementCommunityNorth Carolina Department ofCrime Control and Public Safety,Governor’s Crime CommissionGeorge S. Ake$67,020 98–FS–VX–0008
*Stress Reduction Programfor Law EnforcementPersonnel and Their FamiliesCity of Los AngelesKevin J. Jablonski$89,785 98–IJ–CX–0010
Locally InitiatedPartnerships, Policing
Development of aMultiagency ResearchPartnership Involving theChandler, Glendale, andScottsdale, Arizona, PoliceDepartmentsArizona State UniversityVince Webb$113,240 98–IJ–CX–0006
59NIJ Annual Report 1998
*Implementing CommunityPolicing in Los Angeles: APartnership Between the LosAngeles Police Department,University of California, LosAngeles, and University ofSouthern CaliforniaTraining Research CorporationWellford Wilms$179,560 95–IJ–CX–0060
*Institutionalizing the Use ofResearch in a Local PoliceDepartment: A ContinuingPartnershipUniversity of CincinnatiLawrence Travis$75,913 98–IJ–CX–0068
*Locally Initiated ResearchPartnership With ArlingtonCounty, Virginia, PoliceDepartmentUrban InstituteElizabeth Langston$133,911 98–IJ–CX–0009
National Evaluation ofLocally Initiated ResearchPartnerships IInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.J. Thomas McEwen$299,971 95–IJ–CX–0083
*Research PartnershipBetween Lexington,Kentucky, Division of Policeand Eastern KentuckyUniversityEastern Kentucky UniversityLarry Gaines$33,464 98–IJ–CX–0004
Policing Technology
*Evaluation of Computers inPatrol Cars: Implications forthe Community PolicingRoles of Police OfficersSan Francisco State UniversityCaran Colvin$255,000 98–IJ–CX–0012
*Impact of OleoresinCapsicum Spray onRespiratory Function in the Sitting and ProneMaximal Restraint PositionsUniversity of California, San DiegoTheodore C. Chan$128,176 98–IJ–CX–0079
*Multimethod Study ofPolice Special Weapons and Tactics TeamsUniversity of HoustonDavid Klinger$187,364 98–IJ–CX–0081
60
Appendixes
A National Study ofDelinquency Prevention in SchoolsGottfredson Associates, Inc.Gary D. Gottfredson$261,419 96–MU–MU–0008
Community-BasedAssessment of the CalexicoHousing Authority’s DrugElimination ProgramSan Diego State UniversityFoundationMichael Sabath$131,357 98–IJ–CX–0055
Comparative Effects of High-Rise Public Housing for the ElderlyOmaha Housing AuthorityKaty Salzman$131,063 98–IJ–CX–0075
Evaluating CommunityPolicing in Public
Housing: The SouthPhiladelphia InitiativeTemple UniversityJack R. Greene$191,475 98–IJ–CX–0052
An Evaluation of aComprehensive Service-Based Intervention Strategyin Public HousingYale UniversityDenise Stevens$191,718 98–IJ–CX–0053
Evaluation of a Public Housing DrugElimination ProgramArkansas State UniversityDavid Harding$74,182 98–IJ–CX–0061
Evaluation of a TruancyReduction ProgramMetropolitan Development and Housing AuthorityGerald F. Nicely$118,042 98–IJ–CX–0056
Fear of Crime in Two Public Housing ContextsNorth Carolina State UniversityWilliam R. Smith$63,052 98–IJ–CX–0050
Neighborhood Revitalizationand Disorder: AnIntervention EvaluationUniversity of UtahBarbara Brown$236,195 98–IJ–CX–0022
Public Housing and Crime
Schools
*Addressing Sentencing-Related Changes inCorrectional Health Care:Building a Researcher-Practitioner PartnershipUniversity of Texas MedicalBranchJacques Baillargeon$150,013 98–CE–VX–0022
Attitudes Toward Crimeand Punishment in Vermont: An ExperimentWith Restorative JusticeDoble Research Associates, Inc.John Doble$94,757 98–IJ–CX–0028
Estimating the Impacts of Three Strikes and Truth-in-Sentencing on Correctional PopulationsUniversity of California, LosAngelesElsa Chen$34,997 98–IJ–CX–0082
*Evaluating theDevelopment of anEmpirically Based RiskAssessmentNational Center for State CourtsBrian J. Ostrom$237,787 98–CE–VX–0009
*Examining the Effects of Ohio’s Truth-in- SentencingOhio Department of Rehabilitationand CorrectionHorst Gienapp$117,570 98–CE–VX–0019
*Impact of DeterminateSentencing Laws on PleaRates and Court DelayJustec ResearchThomas Marvell$110,387 98–CE–VX–0017
*Impact of Ohio’s Senate Bill2 on Sentencing DisparityUniversity of CincinnatiJohn Wooldredge$149,194 98–CE–VX–0015
*Impact of Truth inSentencing on Length of Stay in PrisonUrban InstituteWilliam J. Sabol$212,491 98–CE–VX–0006
*Michigan SentencingGuidelines: IntegratingIntermediate Sanctions intoGuidelines and Examiningthe Judicial ResponseNational Center for State CourtsVictor Flango$250,952 98–CE–VX–0008
*New Jersey No EarlyRelease Act: Impact onProsecution, SentencingRutgers State University of New JerseyCandace McCoy$1,124,219 98–CE–VX–0007
*Research on and Evaluationof Sentencing Reforms andTheir EffectsOregon Criminal Justice CouncilPhillip Lemman$310,152 98–CE–VX–0030
Social and Economic Impactof Sentencing PracticesYale UniversityKathryn Dudley$93,481 98–CE–VX–0012
*Unintended Consequencesof Sentencing Policy:Creation of Long-TermHealth Care ObligationsAbt Associates Inc.William Rhodes$127,077 98–CE–VX–0001
61NIJ Annual Report 1998
Officer Protection andCrime Prevention
*COPLINK DatabaseIntegration and Access forLaw Enforcement IntranetCity of TucsonDouglas F. Smith$200,000 97–LB–VX–K023
*Offender Wide-AreaContinuous ElectronicMonitoring SystemsLucent Technologies, Inc.,Integrated SolutionsLaura G. Tutterow$272,677 98–LB–VX–K005
*Proof of Concept and Demonstration for the Personal AlarmTelephonics CorporationDennis Fortner$459,078 97–LB–VX–K021
*Technology Thrust Areas and TechnologySolutions to LawEnforcementRaytheon TI Systems, Inc.Frank Bates$500,000 98–LB–VX–K001
Investigative andForensic Science
Forensics, General
*Computational Assistanceand Training in DNAPopulation Genetics forForensic Science LaboratoriesUniversity of IllinoisR.E. Gaensslen$98,952 98–LB–VX–A018
*Detection of Date-RapeDrugs in Hair and UrineUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoAdam Negrusz$105,564 98–LB–VX–K020
Sentencing
Technology Development
Develop a Rapid ImmobilizedProbe Assay for the Detectionof mtDNA VariationRebecca L. ReynoldsChildren’s Hospital OaklandResearch Institute$193,318 96–IJ–CX–0028
Forensic Accreditation Board:An Accreditation Program for Forensic SpecialtyCertifying ProgramsAmerican Academy of ForensicSciencesGraham R. Jones$51,000 98–IJ–CX–0074
*Medicolegal DeathInvestigator Guidelines and Training ProjectOccupational Research andAssessment, Inc.Steven C. Clark$150,000 98–LB–VX–0007
National Center for Forensic ScienceUniversity of Central FloridaWilliam W. McGee$1,047,992 98–IJ–CX–K003
*National Commission on the Future of DNA EvidenceU.S. Attorney’s Office, District of ColumbiaBarbara Anijikaiye$99,952 98–LB–VX–A049
*Pattern RecognitionTechniques in Investigativeand Forensic SciencesInstitute for Linguistic Evidence, Inc.Carole E. Chaski$90,000 98–LB–VX–0065
*Support to the 15thMeeting of the InternationalAssociation of ForensicSciences15th Meeting of the International Association ofForensic Sciences, Inc.Barry A.J. Fisher$49,920 98–LB–VX–0011
Teleforensic Demonstration ProjectNew York State PoliceGerald M. Zeosky$50,000 98–IJ–CX–A051
DNA 5-Year Research andDevelopment Plan
*Chip-Based Genetic Detectorfor Rapid Identification of IndividualsNanogen, Inc.Michael I. Nerenberg$499,882 97–LB–VX–0004
*Database of Y-Chromosome STR Loci in U.S. PopulationsPennsylvania State UniversityMark Stoneking$110,384 98–LB–VX–0005
*Evaluation of New STRMarkers for ForensicAnalysisUniversity of CincinnatiRanjan Deka$220,359 98–LB–VX–0002
*Evaluation of SingleNucleotide Polymorphisms(SNP’s) for HumanIdentification UseUniversity of Texas, HoustonDavid Stivers$40,000 98–LB–VX–0010
*Improved Analysis of DNA STR’s for HumanIdentification-MassSpectrometryGenetrace Systems, Inc.Christopher H. Becker$301,999 97–LB–VX–0003
*Microchip DNAFingerprinting DevicesOak Ridge National LaboratoryJ. Michael Ramsey$498,963 97–LB–VX–A063
*Microdevice for Automated, Ultra-High-Speed, and Portable DNAForensicsWhitehead Institute forBiomedical ResearchDaniel J. Ehrlich$250,000 98–LB–VX–K022
*Rapid DNA Typing by Laser Desorption MassSpectroscopyOak Ridge National LaboratoryC.H. Winston Chen$149,040 97–LB–VX–A047
*Validation of the Combined DNA IndexSystem-Approved DNAMarkers for Forensic TestingUniversity of Texas, HoustonRanajit Chakraborty$49,741 98–LB–VX–K019
Forensic DNA Laboratory Improvement Program
Acquisition of CODISCapabilitiesCity of Tucson (Arizona)Walter K. Tannert$11,360 98–DN–VX–0026
Arizona DNA AnalysisEnhancement ProgramArizona Department of PublicSafetyDebra A. Figarelli$420,000 98–DN–VX–0014
Arkansas: Establishment of a DNA Data BankArkansas State Crime LaboratoryKenneth H. Michau$161,250 98–DN–VX–0019
California Statewide DNALaboratory ImprovementProgramCalifornia Department of Justice,Bureau of Criminal Identificationand InformationJan Bashinski$1,000,000 98–DN–VX–0013
Continuation and Expansion of “Fast Track”Forensic Indexing of CrimeScene ProfilesCity of Albuquerque (New Mexico)John F. Krebsbach$141,979 98–DN–VX–0009
Denver Forensic DNA LaboratoryImprovement ProgramDenver Police DepartmentGreggory S. LaBerge$198,340 98–DN–VX–0010
Developing Criteria forModel External DNAProficiency TestingUniversity of Illinois, ChicagoJoseph L. Peterson$249,926 96–DN–VX–0001
62
Appendixes
Development andImplementation of WestVirginia Short TandemRepeat Combined DNA Index System DatabaseMarshall University ResearchCorporationTerry W. Fenger$2,000,000 98–DN–VX–K001
DNA Improvement of Data-basing and Forensic CaseworkMichigan State Police, ForensicScience DivisionFrank E. Schehr$457,015 98–DN–VX–0031
DNA STR Conversion ProjectMarion County (Indianapolis)Forensic Services AgencyJames E. Hamby$359,560 98–DN–VX–0004
Enhancement of theTennessee Bureau ofInvestigation’s Forensic DNALaboratory ProgramTennessee Bureau ofInvestigation, Forensic ServicesDivisionWilliam J. Darby, III$85,336 98–DN–VX–0002
Expanded Felon DNADatabank Program for the State of AlabamaAlabama Department of Forensic SciencesJohn W. Hicks$374,900 98–DN–VX–0021
Expanded Forensic DNATesting Program for theState of HawaiiHonolulu Police DepartmentWayne Kimoto$300,540 98–DN–VX–0020
Expanding DNA AnalysisCapabilities: STRImplementationCounty of Bexar (Texas)Lonnie D. Ginsberg$171,310 98–DN–VX–0024
Expanding DNA Typing inGeorgiaGeorgia Bureau of InvestigationGeorge Herrin, Jr.$380,950 98–DN–VX–0022
Expansion of DNA Analysis CapabilitiesIllinois State Police, SpringfieldSusan Hart Johns$150,000 98–DN–VX–0032
Expansion of DNA ServicesNorth Carolina State Bureau of InvestigationMark S. Nelson$73,000 98–DN–VX–0012
Florida StatewideCoordinated Forensic DNA Laboratory ProgramFlorida Department of LawEnforcementDale Heideman$900,000 98–DN–VX–0034
Forensic Development of STR Database andComparison to Nonsubject CasesMaryland State PoliceLouis C. Portis$180,808 96–DN–VX–0002
Forensic DNA EnhancementProject for TexasTexas Department of Public SafetyD. Pat Johnson$380,000 98–DN–VX–0001
Forensic DNA LaboratoryProgram ExpansionMissouri State Highway PatrolT. J. Luikart$546,742 98–DN–VX–0025
Forensic DNA Program forConnecticut: PCRTechnologiesConnecticut Department of Public SafetyElaine M. Pagliaro$191,000 98–DN–VX–0017
Fort Worth DNA LaboratoryEnhancementCity of Fort Worth (Texas)D.E. Garrett$121,085 98–DN–VX–0027
Houston Forensic DNALaboratory ImprovementProgramCity of HoustonJames Bolding$106,909 98–DN–VX–0005
Implementation ofAutomated Multiplex Short Tandem Repeats in Forensic CaseworkCounty of DallasTimothy J. Sliter$151,068 98–DN–VX–0006
Improvement of Capability to Analyze DNAVirginia Department of Criminal Justice ServicesDeanne F. Dabbs$375,000 98–DN–VX–0018
Increasing STR TypingCapabilities in the Oregon DNA LaboratoryOregon Department of State PoliceCecilia H. von Beroldingen$113,198 97–DN–VX–0013
Kansas City, Missouri, Police Department DNAEquipment UpgradeKansas City Police DepartmentJohn T. Wilson$163,700 98–DN–VX–0033
Maine Statewide DNALaboratory ImprovementProgramMaine Department of Public SafetyTimothy D. Kupferschmid$155,000 97–DN–VX–0008
Montana DNA ProgramMontana Department of JusticeJames Streeter$34,550 98–DN–VX–0008
North Dakota Department of Health Crime LaboratoryDivision DNA ProjectNorth Dakota Department of HealthHope R. Olson$73,774 98–DN–VX–0030
North Louisiana Crime LabDNA Analysis ImprovementProgramNorth Louisiana CriminalisticsLaboratoryPatrick W. Wojtkiewicz$275,470 98–DN–VX–0003
63NIJ Annual Report 1998
Northern Illinois Police Crime Lab Forensic DNA AnalysisProgramNorthern Illinois Police CrimeLaboratoryJane M. Homeyer$266,669 98–DN–VX–0011
Prince Georges County PoliceDepartment DNA/SerologyLaboratory ProjectPrince Georges County (Maryland) GovernmentMichael Ricucci$222,290 98–DN–VX–0028
STR Conversion andExpansion of CODIS DatabaseMinnesota Department of Public SafetyTerry L. Laber$200,000 98–DN–VX–0023
STR Technology Update andIncreased Combined DNAIndex System CapacityNew Jersey Division of StatePoliceLinda B. Jankowski$297,381 98–DN–VX–0035
Tarrant County Forensic DNALaboratory EnhancementProgramCounty of Tarrant (Texas)Ronald L. Singer$89,520 98–DN–VX–0016
Upgrade of SerologicalAnalysis to DNA TechnologiesKentucky State PoliceLucy A. Davis$231,570 98–DN–VX–0007
Validation andImplementation of PCR-STRAnalysis and CODIS SiteEstablishmentBaltimore County (Maryland)Police DepartmentKaren L. Irish$119,300 98–DN–VX–0015
Washington State PatrolForensic DNA LaboratoryImprovement Program,Phase IIIWashington State PatrolDonald C. MacLaren$300,000 98–DN–VX–0029
Less-Than-LethalIncapacitation
*Biomechanical Assessmentof Nonlethal WeaponsWayne State UniversityAlbert I. King$148,276 98–LB–VX–K017
*Development of a Database of the Effects of Less-Than-LethalWeaponsPro Tac InternationalKen Hubbs$84,770 98–LB–VX–K006
Evaluation of the HumanEffects of a PrototypeElectric Stun ProjectilePennsylvania State UniversityPamela R. Kauffman$99,600 98–IJ–CX–K006
*Evaluation of VehicleStopping ElectromagneticPrototype DevicesU.S. Department of the ArmyE. Scannell$250,000 98–LB–VX–A099
Ring Airfoil Projectile Systemfor Less-Than-LethalApplicationGuilford Engineering Associates, Inc.David Findlay$249,303 97–IJ–CX–K019
Communication andInformation Technology
*Development of AdvancedWireless TechnologyStandardsAssociation of Public SafetyCommunications OfficialsInternational, Inc.Craig M. Jorgensen$44,570 97–LB–VX–K002
*Development of aCommunity Access System for the Chicago Police DepartmentAbt Associates Inc.Marianne Beauregard$474,418 98–LB–VX–0070
*Face Recognition andIntelligent SoftwareDevelopmentAnalytic Services, Inc.Tina M. Babin$3,749,998 98–LB–VX–K021
*Investigation andEvaluation of Voice StressAnalysis TechnologyU.S. Air Force ResearchLaboratorySharon M. Walter$150,000 98–LB–VX–A013
*Law Enforcement/CriminalJustice MultijurisdictionInformation System Study—Phase IICenter for TechnologyCommercialization, Inc.Thomas Kennedy$299,341 97–LB–VX–K012
*Southwest Border StatesAntidrug Information SystemCriminal Information SharingAllianceGlen Gillum$7,918,174 97–LB–VX–K009
Telemedicine NetworkPrototypeSPAWAR, CharlestonJerry A. Koenig$937,273 98–IJ–CX–A014
*Voice-Response Translatorfor Preprogrammed LawEnforcement PhrasesIntegrated Wave Technologies, Inc.John Hall$401,324 98–LB–VX–K023
Training and SimulationTechnologies
*Bomb Threat TrainingSimulatorUniversity of HoustonChristopher A. Chung$131,075 98–LB–VX–K016
*Development of Computer-Based Training for LawEnforcementAdvanced Systems TechnologyBarbara Hines$319,436 98–LB–VX–K018
64
Appendixes
*Law EnforcementTechnology Training Needs Assessment PlanningSam Houston State UniversityLarry T. Hoover$500,000 97–LB–VX–K020
*Training, TechnologyDevelopment, andImplementationU.S. Department of Defense, Naval Air Warfare CenterJanet Weisenford$507,944 97–MU–MU–A042
*Working With Technology in CorrectionsAmerican Correctional AssociationJohn J. Greene$164,930 96–LB–VX–K004
CounterterrorismTechnologies
Assessment of ExplosivelyFormed PenetratorU.S. Department of the Navy, Naval Surface Warfare Center,Indian Head DivisionMarc Magdinec$445,988 97–DT–CX–A074
Body Cavity ScreeningSystemQuantum Magnetics, Inc.Geoff Barrall$250,263 98–DT–CX–K005
Chemical/BiologicalDosimeter Advanced Concept TechnologyDemonstrationU.S. Department of Defense,Directorate of Research andEngineeringJasper Lupo$200,000 98–DT–CX–A073
Cybercrime Cyberterrorism StudyTennessee Valley AuthorityDavid J. Icove$65,000 98–MU–CX–A076
Defense Advanced ResearchProjects Agency (DARPA)Support of the Joint-ProgramSteering Group (JPSG)U.S. Department of Defense,Defense Advanced ResearchProjects AgencyDavid Fields$349,985 97–IJ–CX–A025
Detection and Classificationof Concealed Weapons Using Magnetic GradientMeasurementsU.S. Department of Energy, Idaho National EngineeringLaboratoryJonathan Nadler$101,959 95–IJ–CX–A027
Development of anInexpensive Radar Flashlight for LawEnforcement and Corrections ApplicationsGeorgia Institute of TechnologyE.F. Greneker$336,539 98–DT–CX–K003
Explosives Detection and Remediation Research and EvaluationU.S. Department of Defense,Office of Special TechnologyDavid Perkins$1,350,000 97–DT–CX–A068
Laser Dazzler AssessmentU.S. Air Force ResearchLaboratoryChad Lindstrom$290,000 98–DT–CX–A040
Multisensor PortalConcealed WeaponsDetectionChang Industry, Inc.Yu-Wen Chang$850,164 98–DT–CX–K001
Passive Millimeter-WaveCamera for ConcealedWeaponsThermotrex CorporationPeter F. Black$299,942 98–DT–CX–K006
Portable Through-the-Wall Surveillance SystemRaytheon CompanyLarry Frazier$278,595 98–DT–CX–K004
Stand-Off Detection andTracking of ConcealedWeaponsQuantum Magnetics, Inc.Peter V. Czipott$297,733 98–DT–CX–K002
Technical Support for the Concealed WeaponsDetection and Through-the-Wall SurveillanceProgramsU.S. Air Force ResearchLaboratory, InformationDirectorateDavid Ferris$1,499,076 98–MU–MU–A062
Technical Support to NIJ’s Office of Science and TechnologyU.S. Department of Energy, Pacific Northwest NationalLaboratorySteven W. Martin$157,546 97–DT–CX–A092
Program Assessment,Policy, andCoordination
*Facilitation of Domesticand International Technology PartnershipsEagan, McAllister Associates, Inc.Robert Greenberg$428,589 96–LB–VX–K008
*Governance and Technology DeliveryProcesses for the NationalLaw Enforcement andCorrections TechnologyCenters and Their UserCommunitiesPymatuning Group, Inc.Ruth M. Davis$498,204 98–LB–VX–0001
65NIJ Annual Report 1998
*Information Technology AcquisitionInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.J. Thomas McEwen$499,869 98–LB–VX–K011
*Law EnforcementTechnology, TechnologyTransfer, Less-Than-LethalWeapons Technology, andPolicy Liability AssessmentSEASKATE, Inc.E.A. Burkhalter$255,828 96–LB–VX–K006
*Less-Than-Lethal PolicyAssessment PanelSEASKATE, Inc.E.A. Burkhalter$352,866 96–MU–MU–K016
Public Acceptance of Police TechnologiesInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.J. Thomas McEwen$100,000 93–IJ–CX–K012
*Research Conference on Illicit SubstanceDetectionGordon Research ConferencesJimmie C. Oxley$20,000 97–LB–VX–0007
*Surplus Property ProgramUltimate Enterprise LimitedMichael Simpson$212,998 96–LB–VX–K002
*Systems Engineering andEvaluation Support for theNational Institute of JusticeOffice of Science andTechnologyU.S. Department of Defense,Defense Support OfficeCarl F. Klele$1,298,898 96–LB–VX–A038
Standards and Testing
Technology AssessmentProgramU.S. Department of Commerce,National Institute of Standardsand TechnologyKathleen M. Higgins$3,827,375 94–IJ–CX–A004
Technology Assistance
Technology Assistance, General
*Oak Ridge LaboratoryTechnical Support to the National Institute of JusticeOak Ridge National LaboratoryJames A. Reafsnyder$250,000 98–LB–VX–A075
*Sandia NationalLaboratories Test FacilitySandia National LaboratoriesDebra D. Spencer$525,000 97–LB–VX–A004
National Law Enforcement and Corrections TechnologyCenters
NIJ’s National Law Enforcementand Corrections TechnologyCenters (NLECTC) offer central-ized sources of product and tech-nology information, assessment,and referral services to lawenforcement, corrections, andother criminal justice profession-als. NIJ also supports a BorderResearch and Technology Centerthat focuses on developing andenhancing border control. The following awards providetechnical assistance and otherresources in support of theDirector of Science and Technologyat NIJ through operation of theNLECTC.
National—Rockville,Maryland: National LawEnforcement and CorrectionsTechnology CenterAspen Systems CorporationDavid C. Shinton$2,649,943 96–MU–MU–K011
Northeast Region—Rome,New York: National LawEnforcement and CorrectionsTechnology CenterAir Force Research LaboratoryInformation DirectorateJohn A. Ritz$2,670,000 96–IJ–CX–A032
Rocky Mountain Region—Denver, Colorado: NationalLaw Enforcement andCorrections TechnologyCenterUniversity of Denver, ColoradoSeminaryDeborah G. Bradford$1,786,004 96–MU–MU–K012
Southeast Region—Charleston, South Carolina:National Law Enforcementand Corrections Technology CenterSouth Carolina Research AuthorityGary A. Mastrandrea$1,839,697 97–MU–MU–K020
Southeast Region—Charleston, South Carolina: National LawEnforcement and Corrections Technology CenterU.S. Department of the Navy,Space and Naval Warfare SystemsCenter, CharlestonRonald L. Polkowsky$199,030 96–IJ–CX–A010
Western Region—El Segundo, California:National Law Enforcementand Corrections Technology CenterAerospace CorporationDonald Peterson$1,624,793 96–MU–MU–K006
Operation of the Border Research andTechnology CenterSPAWAR, San DiegoChris Aldridge$244,250 96–IJ–CX–A036
Operation of the Office of Law Enforcement TechnologyCommercializationWheeling Jesuit UniversityTom Burgoyne$2,800,000 98–IJ–CX–K002
66
Appendixes
67NIJ Annual Report 1998
Development of a National Study of VictimNeeds and AssistanceVictim Services, Inc.Ellen Brickman$379,193 98–VF–GX–0011
Evaluation of Victims of Crime State Compensation andAssistance Programs
Urban InstituteBlaine Liner$750,000 98–VF–GX–0016
Repeat and MultipleVictimizations: The Role of Individual and Contextual FactorsPennsylvania State UniversityR. Barry Ruback$24,997 98–IJ–CX–0034
Victimization Outcomes:What Influences VictimCompliance, Injury, andCrime Completion?University of Maryland, College ParkCatherine A. Gallagher$24,987 98–IJ–CX–0025
Violence, General
NIJ-NCOVR PartnershipCarnegie Mellon UniversityPatricia Edgar$526,342 98–MU–MU–0007
Patterns of Violence: An Analysis of IndividualOffendersUniversity of Nebraska, OmahaJulie Horney$86,172 96–IJ–CX–0015
Violence Against Women and FamilyViolence
Beliefs and PerceptionsAbout Domestic ViolenceState University of New York,AlbanyAlissa P. Worden$179,216 98–WT–VX–0018
*Children Exposed toDomestic ViolenceAmerican Bar AssociationLaura Nickles$140,987 98–IJ–CX–0069
Conference: Co-Occurrenceof Domestic Violence and Child AbuseUniversity of MinnesotaJeffrey L. Edleson$24,975 98–WT–VX–0026
Development of Violence Against WomenUniversity of HoustonErnest N. Jouriles$86,054 98–WT–VX–0005
Developmental Antecedentsof Violence Against Women:A Longitudinal ApproachUniversity of North Carolina,GreensboroJacquelyn White$99,745 98–WT–VX–0010
Developmental Theory and Battering IncidentsUniversity of CincinnatiPaul Mazerolle$97,142 98–WT–VX–0007
Drugs and Alcohol and Their Connections toDomestic ViolenceUniversity of New MexicoPaul Guerin$41,428 98–IJ–CX–0031
Ecological Model of Battered Women’sExperience Over TimeGeorge Washington UniversityMary Ann Dutton$350,948 98–WT–VX–0023
Economic Distress,Community Context, andIntimate Violence: AnApplication and Extension ofSocial Disorganization TheoryUniversity of Tennessee, KnoxvilleMichael L. Benson$93,107 98–WT–VX–0011
Estimating the Population at Risk for Violence DuringChild VisitationVictim Services, Inc.Chris O’Sullivan$44,797 98–IJ–CX–0021
*Evaluation of a CoordinatedResponse to DomesticViolenceSan Diego Association of GovernmentsStuart R. Shaffer$62,526 98–WT–VX–K014
Evaluation of Efforts toImplement No-Drop PoliciesAmerican Bar AssociationLaura Nickles$233,342 98–WT–VX–0029
*Evaluation of SpecialSession Domestic Violence:Enhanced Advocacy andInterventionsUniversity of ConnecticutCathrine M. Havens$74,999 98–WE–VX–0031
Family Violence: Building aCoordinated CommunityResponseAmerican Medical AssociationLarry S. Goldman$8,555 96–IJ–CX–0029
Field Testing DomesticViolence Risk AssessmentInstrumentsVictim Services, Inc.Chris O’Sullivan$97,661 98–WT–VX–0019
Victimization and Victim Services
Violence
Impact of DomesticViolence—EmploymentExperiences of Women on WelfareUniversity of South FloridaMartha L. Coulter$429,068 98–WT–VX–0020
*Impact Evaluation of the Data Collection andCommunication SystemsComponents of the ViolenceAgainst Women Act STOPGrant Projects: AnImplementation GuideNational Center for State CourtsSusan Keilitz$199,582 96–WT–NX–0002
Impact Evaluation of aSexual Assault NurseExaminer Unit inAlbuquerque, New MexicoUniversity of New MexicoCameron Crandall$262,853 98–WT–VX–0027
*Impact Evaluation of STOPGrant Programs for ReducingViolence Against WomenUniversity of ArizonaEileen M. Luna$239,072 98–WT–VX–K010
Impact Evaluation of STOPGrants Law Enforcement and ProsecutionInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.J. Thomas McEwen$399,974 96–WT–NX–0007
A Longitudinal Study of Battered Women in the SystemUniversity of Colorado, BoulderJoanne Belknap$234,934 98–WT–VX–0024
Male-Perpetrated Domestic ViolenceBoston UniversityBarbara A. Cole$76,667 98–WT–VX–0031
National Evaluation of the Arrest PoliciesProgram Under ViolenceAgainst WomenInstitute for Law and Justice, Inc.J. Thomas McEwen$624,650 98–WE–VX–0012
*National Evaluation of the Rural DomesticViolence and ChildVictimization EnforcementGrant ProgramCosmos CorporationMary A. Dunton$369,953 98–WR–VX–K002
*National Evaluation of the Violence AgainstWomen Act GrantsUrban InstituteMartha Burt$449,354 95–WT–NX–0005
Predicting Levels of Abuse and ReassaultAmong Batterer Program ParticipantsIndiana University of PennsylvaniaAlex Hackert$94,981 98–WT–VX–0014
Predicting Reporting and Nonreporting of Sexual Assault to the Police: A MultivariateAnalysisHawaii Department of the Attorney GeneralLibby O. Ruch$32,227 98–WT–VX–0015
Prosecutors’ ChargingDecisions in Sexual Assault CasesUniversity of Nebraska, OmahaCassia Spohn$173,460 98–WT–VX–0003
Research and Evaluation on Violence Against WomenKing County Epidemiology,Planning and Evaluation UnitSandy Ciske$119,346 98–WT–VX–0025
Research on ViolenceAgainst Women: Syntheses for PractitionersState University of New York,AlbanyAlissa P. Worden$349,484 98–WT–VX–K011
*Researcher-PractitionerPartnership: Evaluating the Domestic ViolenceEnhanced Response
Team Program in Colorado Springs21st Century SolutionsCraig D. Uchida$75,000 98–WE–VX–K010
Researcher-PractitionerPartnership: Evaluation of Grants to EncourageArrest Policies for Domestic ViolencePennsylvania State UniversityPaul Antolosky$74,921 98–WE–VX–0032
*The Richmond/PoliceFoundation DomesticViolence PartnershipPolice FoundationRosann Greenspan$199,098 98–WT–VX–0001
Risk Factors for ViolentVictimization of Women: A Prospective StudyWellesley CollegeJane Siegel$67,035 98–WT–VX–0028
Secondary Data Analysis on the Etiology, Course, and Consequences ofIntimate Partner ViolenceAgainst Poor WomenBetter Homes FundAmy Salomon$108,962 98–WT–VX–0012
Sexual Violence andIntimate Partner ViolenceCenters for Disease Control and PreventionTed Jones$500,000 98–IJ–CX–A026
Understanding theIntergenerationalTransmission of ViolenceMichigan State UniversityG. Anne Bogat$248,830 98–WT–VX–0021
Using a Longitudinal Data Set to FurtherUnderstanding of theTrajectory of IntimateViolence Over TimeMichigan State UniversityCris Sullivan$99,117 98–WT–VX–0013
68
Appendixes
69NIJ Annual Report 1998
Youth, General
*Assessing Mental Health Problems AmongSerious DelinquentsCalifornia Youth AuthorityRudy Haapanen$310,345 98–CE–VX–0024
Boot Camps for Juveniles: A Multisite StudyUniversity of Maryland, College ParkDoris MacKenzie$48,063 96–SC–LX–0001
Classification for Juvenile CorrectionsUniversity of CincinnatiLawrence F. Travis$187,437 98–JB–VX–0108
*Community JusticeConferences: Restorative PolicingUniversity of Maryland, College ParkLawrence Sherman$221,772 98–IJ–CX–0033
Evaluation of theDepartment of Correction Housing Program for WaivedJuveniles in OhioAbt Associates Inc.Dale Parent$191,976 98–CE–VX–0003
Exploring Youth Violence:Risk and Protective Factors in Three SettingsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCheryl Maxson$124,935 98–IJ–CX–0020
Good Kids in BadCircumstances: ALongitudinal AnalysisUniversity of CincinnatiMichael G. Turner$19,633 98–IJ–CX–0026
Impact of JuvenileSentencing GuidelinesUniversity of UtahRussel Van Fleet$200,000 98–JB–VX–0111
*Longitudinal Analysis ofRecidivism Rates in ThreeCalifornia Youth AuthorityParole Release CohortsCalifornia Youth AuthorityNorman Skonovd$137,450 98–CE–VX–0026
*Maryland Department ofJuvenile Justice Partnershipto Study Waiver EffectsUniversity of BaltimoreJeffrey D. Senese$146,267 98–CE–VX–0018
Neighborhood and FamilyContexts of Adolescent Girls’ DelinquencyHarvard UniversityDawn A. Obeidallah$49,505 98–IJ–CX–0044
Process and OutcomeEvaluation of ProsecutorialWaiver to Criminal Court in VirginiaUrban InstituteSanjeer Sridharan$194,803 98–JB–VX–0107
Violence Against ImmigrantWomen and SystemicResponsesKent State UniversityEdna Erez$184,527 98–WT–VX–0030
Violence Against WomenWichita State UniversityJana L. Jasinski$85,206 98–WT–VX–0017
Violence Against Women—Population-Based Comparison of Assaultive Injury PatternUniversity of PittsburghHarold B. Weiss$184,917 98–WT–VX–0016
Violence Against Women:The Role of Welfare ReformCalifornia Institute for Mental HealthSandra Naylor Goodwin$516,842 98–WT–VX–0009
Violence and Threats of Violence Against Women in AmericaCenter for Policy ResearchPatricia G. Tjaden$250,000 93–IJ–CX–0012
Firearms
Analysis of Title XI Effects:Assault Weapons BanEvaluationUrban InstituteJeffrey A. Roth$301,826 98–IJ–CX–0039
The Effect of Gun Carry Laws on Crime and InjuryHarvard UniversityDeborah Azrael$26,138 98–IJ–CX–0042
Effectiveness of Denial of Handgun PurchaseUniversity of California, DavisFay Yee$160,046 98–IJ–CX–0024
Police Problem-SolvingStrategies for Dealing withYouth and Gang-RelatedFirearmsRand CorporationPeter Greenwood$397,789 98–IJ–CX–0043
Youth
70
Appendixes
Structured Decision Making for Alameda County ProbationNational Council on Crime and DelinquencyBarry Krisberg$75,000 98–JB–VX–0109
Understanding Needs andOutcomes of SubstanceAbuse Treatment forJuvenile OffendersRAND CorporationPatricia Ebener$74,976 98–JB–VX–0112Use of Risk Assessment inAchieving Accountability-Based SanctionsUniversity of MichiganRosemary Sarri$282,600 98–JB–VX–0110
*Youth-Police Interactionand the Implication for Coproduction of Safety in ChicagoChicago Alliance for Neighborhood SafetyWarren Friedman$160,787 98–IJ–CX–0077
Gangs
Assessment of theCommunity Impact of Civil Gang InjunctionsUniversity of Southern CaliforniaCheryl Maxson$398,728 98–IJ–CX–0038
Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.University of Nebraska, OmahaFinn-Aage Esbensen$300,434 94–IJ–CX–0058
*Gang-Control Efforts in a Community PolicingEnvironment: DevelopingProcess and Impact MeasuresPolice Executive Research ForumDeborah Weisel$229,484 98–IJ–CX–0083
*Police Problem-SolvingStrategies for Dealing WithYouth and Gang-RelatedFirearmsRAND CorporationPeter Greenwood$397,789 98–IJ–CX–0043
*The Police Response to Gangs: A Multisite StudyArizona State UniversityCharles Katz$163,532 98–IJ–CX–0078
Youth Groups and Gangs in Europe: A Joint American/European WorkshopUniversity of Southern CaliforniaMalcolm W. Klein$9,931 98–IJ–CX–0027
71NIJ Annual Report 1998
Most NIJ materials are free andcan be obtained in several ways:
• Download documents fromthe NIJ World Wide Web siteat http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij.
• Call or write to the NationalCriminal Justice ReferenceService (NCJRS) at800–851–3420 (outside the United States, call 301–519–5500), P.O. Box 6000, Rockville, MD20849–6000, or download doc-uments from the NCJRS Website at http://www.ncjrs.org.
• Order Research Previews viafax-on-demand by calling800–851–3420.
• For many science and technology publications, call the National Law Enforce-ment and CorrectionsTechnology Center (NLECTC)at 800–248–2742 or download documents fromthe NLECTC Web site athttp://www.nlectc.org.
NIJ publishes several types ofpublications, including:
• Research in Action:Overviews of specific topicsand programs in research and practice.
• Research in Brief:Summaries of recent NIJresearch, development, andevaluation findings.
• Research Reports:Comprehensive reports onNIJ-sponsored research anddevelopment projects.
• Research in ProgressVideotapes: Sixty-minutelectures with a question-and-answer segment presented by well-known scholars and accompanied by aResearch Preview summariz-ing the salient points of thediscussion.
• Research Previews: Two-page fact sheets on researchand evaluation findings andactivities.
• Issues and Practices:Reports presenting programoptions and issues for crimi-nal justice managers andadministrators.
• Program Focus: Highlightsof specific innovative Stateand local criminal justice programs.
• Research Forum: Reportsbased on NIJ-sponsored con-ferences and lectures series.
Corrections
Chicago’s Safer Foundation: ARoad Back for Ex-Offenders, Finn,P., Program Focus, June 1998, 19 pages, NCJ 167575.
The Delaware Department ofCorrections Life Skills Program,Finn, P., Program Focus,September 1998, 19 pages, NCJ 169589.
Managing Prison Growth in NorthCarolina Through StructuredSentencing, Wright, R.F., ProgramFocus, February 1998, 15 pages,NCJ 168944.
The Orange County, Florida, JailEducational and VocationalPrograms, Finn, P., Program Focus,December 1997, 16 pages, NCJ 166820.
Public Health/CorrectionsCollaborations: Prevention andTreatment, Hammett, T.M.,Research in Brief, July 1998, 19pages, NCJ 169590.
Successful Job Placement for Ex-Offenders: The Center forEmployment Opportunities, Finn,P., Program Focus, March 1998, 19 pages, NCJ 168102.
Texas’ Project RIO (Re-Integrationof Offenders), Finn, P., ProgramFocus, June 1998, 19 pages, NCJ 168637.
Women Offenders: ProgrammingNeeds and Promising Approaches,Morash, M., T.S. Bynum, and B.A.Koons, Research in Brief,September 1998, 11 pages, NCJ 171668.
Appendix B: Documents Published in Fiscal Year 1998
Courts andSentencing
Resolving Community Conflict:The Dispute Settlement Center ofDurham, North Carolina, McGillis,D., Program Focus, September1998, 15 pages, NCJ 172203.
Crime Prevention
Crime in the Schools: A Problem-Solving Approach, Kenney, D.,Research Preview, August 1998, 4 pages, FS 000224.
Kids, COPS, and Communities,Chaiken, M., Issues and Practices,June 1998, 67 pages, NCJ 169599.
National Evaluation of G.R.E.A.T.,Esbensen, F., and D.W. Osgood,Research in Brief, November 1997,8 pages, NCJ 167264.
Preventing Crime: What Works, What Doesn’t, What’sPromising, Sherman, L.W., D.C. Gottfredson, D.L. MacKenzie,J. Eck, P. Reuter, and S.D. Bushway,Research in Brief, July 1998, 19 pages, NCJ 171676.
Violence Among Middle School and High School Students: Analysis and Implications forPrevention, Lockwood, D.,Research in Brief, October 1997, 12 pages, NCJ 166363.
Visibility and Vigilance: Metro’s Situational Approach toPreventing Subway Crime, LaVigne, N.G., Research in Brief,November 1997, 12 pages, NCJ 166372.
Drugs and Crime
Drug Courts and the Role ofGraduated Sanctions, Harrell, A.,Research Preview, August 1998, 4 pages, FS 000219.
Rise of Hallucinogen Use, Hunt, D.,Research in Brief, October 1997,12 pages, NCJ 166607.
Law Enforcement
Community Policing in Action:Lessons From an ObservationalStudy, Mastrofski, S., R.B. Parks,and R.E. Worden, ResearchPreview, June 1998, 4 pages, FS 000199.
Measuring What Matters, Part Two:Developing Measures of What thePolice Do, Brady, T.V., Research inAction, November 1997, 16 pages,NCJ 167255.
Police Overtime: An Examinationof Key Issues, Bayley, D.H., and R.E.Worden, Research in Brief, May1998, 17 pages, NCJ 167572.
Policing in Emerging Democracies:Workshop Papers and Highlights,Wirth, T., Research Report,October 1997, 108 pages, NCJ 167024.
Policing Neighborhoods: A ReportFrom Indianapolis, Mastrofski,S.D., R.B. Parks, A.J. Reiss, Jr., andR.E. Worden, Research Preview,July 1998, 2 pages, FS 000223.
Protective Intelligence ThreatAssessment Investigations: A Guide for State and Local LawEnforcement Officials, Fein, R.A.,and B. Vossekvil, Research Report,July 1998, 65 pages, NCJ 170612.
Technology
Forensic Laboratories: Handbookfor Facility Planning, Design,Construction, and Moving, Office of Law Enforcement Standards,Research Report, April 1998, 71 pages, NCJ 168106.
72
Appendixes
73NIJ Annual Report 1998
Helicopters in Pursuit Operations,Alpert, G.P., Research in Action,September 1998, 6 pages, NCJ 171695.
National Guidelines for DeathInvestigation, NationalMedicolegal Review Panel, Clark, S.C., Research Report,December 1997, 57 pages, NCJ 167568.
State and Local Law EnforcementWireless Communications andInteroperability: A QuantitativeAnalysis, Taylor, M.J., R.C. Epper,and T.K. Tolman, Research Report, January 1998, 131 pages, NCJ 168961.
The Unrealized Potential of DNA Testing, Weedn, V.W., and J.W. Hicks, Research in Brief, April 1998, 8 pages, NCJ 170596.
Using Gunshot DetectionTechnology in High-Crime Areas,Mazerolle, L.G., Research Preview,June 1998, 4 pages, FS 000201.
Wireless Communications andInteroperability Among LawEnforcement Agencies, Taylor, M.J., R.C. Epper, and T.K. Tolman,Research in Brief, February 1998,12 pages, NCJ 168961.
Victims
Civil Protection Orders: Victims’ Views on Effectiveness,Keilitz, S.L., C. Davis, H.S.Efkeman, C. Flango, and P.L.Hannaford, Research Preview,January 1998, 2 pages, FS 000191.
Early Childhood VictimizationAmong Incarcerated Adult Male Felons, Weeks, R., and C.S. Widom, Research Preview,April 1998, 2 pages, FS 000204.
Immigrant Populations as Victims:Toward a Multicultural CriminalJustice System, Davis, R.C., and E.Erez, Research in Brief, May 1998,7 pages, NCJ 167571.
Violence
Adolescent Violence: A View Fromthe Street, Fagan, J., ResearchPreview, January 1998, 4 pages, FS 000189.
Batterer Intervention: ProgramApproaches and Criminal JusticeStrategies, Healey, K.M., C. Smith,with C. O’Sullivan, Issues andPractices, February 1998, 201 pages, NCJ 168638.
Batterer Programs: What CriminalJustice Agencies Need to Know,Healey, K.M., and C. Smith,Research in Action, July 1998, 12 pages, NCJ 171683.
74
Appendixes
The Crime of Stalking: How Big Isthe Problem? Tjaden, P., ResearchPreview, November 1997, 4 pages,FS 000182.
Criminal Behavior of GangMembers and At-Risk Youth, Huff, C.R., Research Preview,March 1998, 4 pages, FS 000190.
Homicide in Eight U.S. Cities:Trends, Context, and PolicyImplications, Lattimore, P.K., J.Trudeau, K.J. Riley, J. Leiter, and S.Edwards, Research Report,November 1997, 144 pages, NCJ 167262.
Legal Interventions in FamilyViolence: Research Findings and Policy Implications, jointlyproduced by NIJ and the AmericanBar Association, Research Report, July 1998, 89 pages, NCJ 171666.
Neighborhood CollectiveEfficacy—Does It Help ReduceViolence? Sampson, R.J., S.W.Raudenbush, and F. Earls,Research Preview, April 1998, 2 pages, FS 000203.
Predicting Criminal BehaviorAmong Authorized Purchasers of Handguns, Wintemute, G.,Research Preview, April 1998, 4 pages, FS 000198.
Stalking in America: Findings Fromthe National Violence AgainstWomen Survey, Tjaden, P., and N.Thoennes, Research in Brief, May 1998, 24 pages, NCJ 169592.
A Study of Homicide in Eight U.S.Cities: An NIJ Intramural ResearchProject, Lattimore, P.K., J. Trudeau,K.J. Riley, J. Leiter, and S. Edwards,Research in Brief, November 1997,12 pages, NCJ 167263.
Trends in Juvenile Violence inEuropean Countries, Pfeiffer, C.,Research Preview, May 1998, 4 pages, FS 000202.
Other
Crime and Justice Atlas, JusticeResearch and StatisticsAssociation, June 1998, 140 pages.
Crime and Place: Plenary Papers of the 1997 Conference onCriminal Justice Research and Evaluation, Taylor, R.B., G. Bazemore, B. Boland, T.R. Clear, R.P. Corbett, Jr., J. Feinblatt,G. Berman, M. Sviridoff, and C.Stone, Research Forum, July 1998,105 pages, NCJ 168618.
Perspectives on Crime and Justice: 1996–1997 Lecture Series,Vol. I, Wilson, J.Q., P. Reuter, M.H. Moore, C.S. Widom, and N.Morris, Research Report,November 1997, 132 pages, NCJ 166609.
NIJ Journal
NIJ Journal, December 1997, No. 234, 44 pages, JL 000234.
NIJ Journal, March 1998, No. 235,40 pages, JL 000235.
NIJ Journal, July 1998, No. 236, 35 pages, JL 000236.
Solicitations forResearch andEvaluation
Building Safer Public HousingCommunities Through LocallyInitiated Research Partnerships(1998), January 1998.
Communicating ResearchFindings: Assessing theCommunication Strategies and Products of the NationalInstitute of Justice, July 1998, SL 000299.
Crime Mapping Research CenterFellowship Program, October 1997,NCJ 166375.
Data Resources Program Fundingfor the Analysis of Existing Data,April 1998, SL 000278.
Drug Court Evaluation II,December 1997.
Evaluating Task Forces, Toll-FreeInformation Service Lines, andDrug Testing Programs: BJA/NIJEvaluation Partnership for theEdward Byrne Memorial State andLocal Law Enforcement AssistanceProgram (1998), August 1998, SL 000289.
Evaluation of Vehicle-StoppingElectromagnetic PrototypeDevices, Phase III: EngineeringField Testing, July 1998, SL 000298.
Evaluation of Victims of Crime Act State Compensation andAssistance Programs, January 1998, SL 000242.
Forensic Document ExaminationValidation Studies, June 1998, SL 000297.
Guidelines for SubmittingProposals for National Institute ofJustice-Sponsored Research,August 1998, NIJ 92737.
Guidelines for SubmittingProposals for NIJ Investigator-Initiated Research, Rev. July 1998,NIJ 92737-4.
Juvenile Accountability IncentiveBlock Grant Program Research andEvaluation Solicitation (1998),April 1998, SL 000282.
Juvenile “Breaking the Cycle”Evaluation, September 1998, SL 000308.
Law Enforcement and CorrectionsFamily Support Solicitation forResearch, Evaluation, Development,and Demonstration Projects, March1998, SL 000266.
Local Evaluations of theResidential Substance AbuseTreatment for State PrisonersProgram, January 1998, SL 000252.
National Evaluation of the RuralDomestic Violence and ChildVictimization Enforcement GrantProgram, March 1998, SL 000270.
NIJ Request for Proposals forComparative, Cross-NationalCrime Research Challenge Grants,April 1998, SL 000277.
75NIJ Annual Report 1998
76
Appendixes
Reducing Nonemergency Calls to911: An Assessment of FourApproaches to Handling CitizenCalls for Service, February 1998, SL 000264.
Research and Evaluation onViolence Against Women,April 1998, SL 000279.
Research on Violence AgainstWomen: Syntheses for Practitioners,March 1998, SL 000271.
Researcher-PractitionerPartnerships: Evaluations ofGrants to Encourage Arrest Policiesfor Domestic Violence, May 1998,SL 000295.
Selection of Arrestee Drug AbuseMonitoring (ADAM) SiteManagement Teams, March 1998,SL 000258.
Solicitation for the Forensic DNALaboratory Improvement Program,Phase 4, September 1998, SL000307.
Solicitation for Investigator-Initiated Research (1998),March 1998, SL 000240.
Solicitation for Policing Researchand Evaluation: Fiscal Year 1998,May 1998, SL 000286.
Solicitation for Research andEvaluation on Corrections andSentencing (1998), April 1998, SL 000276.
Annual Reports
1997 Annual Report to Congress,August 1998, 82 pages, NCJ 171679.
Building Knowledge About Crimeand Justice: The 1998 ResearchProspectus of the NationalInstitute of Justice, November1998, 24 pages, NCJ 167570.
Award Lists
1997 Research Portfolio (Interim),Research in Brief, November 1997,38 pages, NCJ 166374.
NIJ Awards in Fiscal Year 1997,Research in Brief, August 1998,27 pages, NCJ 167576.
NIJ Awards Issued in Response toFiscal Year 1997 Solicitations,Research in Brief, November 1997,20 pages, NCJ 167576.
Catalogs ofPublications
NCJRS Catalog #36,September/October 1997,24 pages, BC 000260.
NCJRS Catalog #37, November/December 1997, 24 pages, BC000261.
NCJRS Catalog #38, January/February 1998, 24 pages, BC 000262.
NCJRS Catalog #39, March/April1998, 24 pages, BC 000263.
NCJRS Catalog #40, May/June 1998,24 pages, BC 000264.
NCJRS Catalog #41, July/August1998, 24 pages, BC 000265.
The NIJ Publications Catalog,1996–1997, November 1997, 72 pages, NCJ 166144.
The NIJ Publications Catalog, 6thEdition, 1986–1996, November1997, 25 pages, NCJ 167244.
ElectronicPublications
NIJ News: An online newsletterthat features articles from thedirector on current issues, along with coordinated articles,announcements, and linksto related sites. Visit NIJ’s Webpage at http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/nij/newsletter.
JUSTINFO: An electronic newslet-ter service sponsored by the U.S.Department of Justice, Office ofJustice Programs and publishedthe 1st and 15th of each month. It provides the latest criminal justice news, information, services, and publications.Subscription information as wellas back issues can be accessed athttp://www.ncjrs.org/justinfo.